Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10138787Before the election, the Liberal Democrats were critical of the free schools policy. Nick Clegg described them as a "disaster for standards".
Beatsong wrote:Just being devil's advocate in a way, but isn't there evidence from both the UK and US that Steiner schools achieve superior academic results to the state average?
Jan wrote:In England, Steiner schools don't do the national tests at age 11 and 14 so you can't compare.
At GCSE level, you'd have to compare them with other fee paying schools in their area rather than state schools (which take children from all income backgrounds).
Beatsong wrote:Jan wrote:In England, Steiner schools don't do the national tests at age 11 and 14 so you can't compare.
At GCSE level, you'd have to compare them with other fee paying schools in their area rather than state schools (which take children from all income backgrounds).
Yes, that did occur to me after I posted.
Steiner schools are likely by definition to serve parents who have a higher than average concern and involvement with their kids' education - since they've made the decision not only to pay fees, but to seek out an unusual school to suit their educational philosophy. As such, of course they'll do be(tter) than a national average that includes every sink school full of indifferent parents.
Beatsong wrote:Jan wrote:In England, Steiner schools don't do the national tests at age 11 and 14 so you can't compare.
At GCSE level, you'd have to compare them with other fee paying schools in their area rather than state schools (which take children from all income backgrounds).
Yes, that did occur to me after I posted.
Steiner schools are likely by definition to serve parents who have a higher than average concern and involvement with their kids' education - since they've made the decision not only to pay fees, but to seek out an unusual school to suit their educational philosophy. As such, of course they'll do be than a national average that includes every sink school full of indifferent parents.
Jan wrote:IThe Libdem's weren't in favour of free schools before the election (not that this means anything now!)Before the election, the Liberal Democrats were critical of the free schools policy. Nick Clegg described them as a "disaster for standards".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10138787
Saturday, 12 January 2008, 00:09 GMT
The state should "back off" and allow charities, parents and private groups to run schools, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg is set to say.
In his first major speech in charge, Mr Clegg will suggest creating so-called Free Schools under local government oversight, but not council controlled.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 84733.htmlConference defies Coalition on 'free schools'
Liberal Democrat councils are on a collision course with Nick Clegg by campaigning against the creation of "free schools" in their communities. Following a rebellion by party activists against the Coalition's flagship education policy, the conference voted to boycott the new schools because they increased "social divisiveness and inequity".
A succession of activists, including many councillors, protested that allowing parents to set up new schools beyond town hall control would benefit better-off families to the detriment of those in poorer areas, and could also lead to selection by the back door. In a snub to the party leadership, they convincingly defeated an attempt to water down a motion critical of free schools.
http://www.libdems.org.uk/latest_news_d ... 0c79f1d0fcConference is concerned by the establishment of academies and free schools under coalition government policy.
In relation to ‘free schools’, conference calls on all Liberal Democrats to urge people not to take up this option because it risks:
1. Creating surplus places which is prejudicial to the efficient use of resources in an age of
austerity.
2. Increasing social divisiveness and inequity into a system which is already unfair because
of the multiple tiers and types of schools created by successive Conservative and Labour
governments and thus abandoning our key goal of a high quality education system for all
learners.
3. Depressing educational outcomes for pupils in general.
4. Increasing the existing complexity of school admissions and exclusions.
5. Putting at risk advances made in making appropriate provision for children with special
needs.
6. Putting in jeopardy the programme of improving school buildings.
7. Wasting precious resources, both human and material, at a time when all efforts should be focused on improving educational outcomes by enabling effective teaching and learning to take place in good local schools accessible to all.
8. Increasing the amount of discrimination on religious grounds in pupil admissions and the employment of teaching staff, and denying children access to broad and balanced Religious Education about the range of different world views held in society.
MamaDuck wrote:Ignorance breeds contempt. Surely if Steiner Schools were substandard, then people wouldn't send their children to them in the first place, let alone pay fees for the pleasure.
Do you suffer terrifying flashbacks of childhood days spent dancing around in pink and purple robes to piano music?
Do you awake during the night in cold sweats thinking “I hope I hid enough acorns in Tree Land to wage war during Morning Tea time tomorrow”?
Have you recently found a box of old books in your attic, entitled Main Lesson, full of pictures of trees and crystals and crude sketches of Mahatma Gandhi?
Can’t spell?
Then you probably went to Michael Park School and may be suffering Post Steiner Traumatic Stress Syndrome! If so, then this is a group for you and the many others who were released into the wild on a quest, armed with nothing more than a Steiner education, to find out exactly just what the fuck Eurhythmy is!
Return to Parenting & Education
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest