First free schools aren't actually serving disadvantaged pupils

Fiona Millar's picture
 83
Excellent use of FOIA here by fellow schools blogger @SchoolDuggery ( definitely worth a follow on Twitter) . I won't repeat the substance since it needs to be read in full, but the key point is that the numbers of children on FSM  in the first tranche of free schools is just over half the national average, and much lower in most cases than the proportion in neighbouring schools. Even if these new schools are in deprived areas, they don't appear to be taking in the deprived children from those communities. Canary Wharf College, whose admissions criteria include prioritising children of the founders ( even though that is not permissable under the current admissions code) only has 2% of pupils on FSM, compared to a local average of 48%.

Also some interesting data regarding SEN pupils and class size, and an entertaining exchange between the Chair of Governors of the West London Free School and the author of the blog about that school's SEN provision, which leads directly back to the still secret funding agreements which neither the free schools or DFE seem willing to share with the public that funds them.

Anyway so much, for now, for the claim that free schools are the shock troops that are going to revolutionise education for poor children.

 
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook

Be notified by email of each new post.





Comments

JimC's picture
Fri, 18/11/2011 - 13:13

You can re read your own post (the one before your last) or concentrate properly on my last post. You will see that you, at best, misquoted me completely. Pray tell me you can do this otherwise we have much further to go than I thought.

If you were a gentleman you'd also apologise for trying to use your mistakes to cast doubt on my character.

Allan Beavis's picture
Fri, 18/11/2011 - 18:08

Here is what you said on your 3rd post -

"Did the government actually say that the aim of free schools is to serve the poorest communities? I thought they were all about choice."

and on your 11th post -

"I’m not convinced that the purpose of free schools is to appeal or raise educational standards for the poor."

Can you please explain how you can make assertions which contradict what HMG has said is one of the key aims behind the Free School policy? Were you ignorant of them or are you trying to play them down?

Either way – the facts speak for themselves and they come straight from the mouths and pens of the government. I think you would make yourself much more credible if you could provide evidence that the government did not implement the Free School policy with a key aim being helping disadvantaged children. I don’t need to cast doubt on your character - you have done it yourself.

If you need evidence from me, I suggest you click on the links in my comment below to “Guest”.

Jake's picture
Fri, 18/11/2011 - 14:15

Butthead, up to your usual tricks I see. Is JimC 'smelling the fear' yet?


Guest's picture
Fri, 18/11/2011 - 17:04

Allan,

Could you provide link and evidence that states that Free Schools Policy was set up with the primary aim to help deprived pupils as this seems to be the basis of your argument. I have googled and cannot find this as a primary aim.
Jim is stating this is not true and that there purpose was to respond to needs of local parents, to add to choice, improve standards, etc
Thanks and please try and stay civil.

Keith Turvey's picture
Fri, 18/11/2011 - 17:55

Guest, a primary aim of this government is to raise educational standards. They bang on about it at every opportunity. See Janet's quotation of Michael Gove in October a little way above. The main mechanism of Government is their policies - free schools, academies, changes to admissions, ebacc etc. The free schools policy, based upon the evidence above from Schoolduggery appears at the moment to be at odds with the claim they want to raise standards of achievement especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. If they genuinely want to raise standards, their policies will have to impact on children from disadvantaged backgrounds the most.


Allan Beavis's picture
Fri, 18/11/2011 - 17:56

Guest -

I've already provided one above from the Guardian under a comment to your comrade JimC. Since you are having some difficulty navigating your way around the internet, here it is again -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jan/29/free-schools-announcemen...

And more about the government's the stated aim that Free Schools emphasise helping disadvantaged children -

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/typesofschools/freeschool...

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/06/michael-gove-will...

http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/speeches/a0077948/michael-goves-sp...

videos

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/typesofschools/freeschool... (cameron)

I do hope that's enough for now. I'm sure you can find more on google. It is true that the government also claim that they "add to choice, improve standards, etc" but these do not cancel out their statements with regard to helping the poor, do they?

Odd that Michael Gove has gone quiet recently

Janet Downs's picture
Fri, 18/11/2011 - 17:48

Guest - see my post above giving Mr Gove's answer in Parliament where he says that opening free schools has increased the emphasis on helping disadvantaged pupils. Also see letter sent by Mr Gove in June 201 to local authorities saying that free schools "aim to tackle inequality".

http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/l/letter%20from%20the%20s...

Also article on DfE website (archived) dated 4 August 2010

"These new schools will have the same legal requirements as academies and enjoy the same freedoms and flexibilities to help them deliver an excellent education and drive up standards in our schools across the country, particularly in disadvantaged areas"

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110113142609/http://educatio...

More recent information re free schools on the DfE website seems to downplay the references to disadvantaged areas. I wonder why?

Keith Turvey's picture
Fri, 18/11/2011 - 17:56

Thanks Janet. Yes I wonder why?


Guest's picture
Fri, 18/11/2011 - 18:45

Thank you all for the links.
I think they prove that all sides are right.
One of the aims is to help improve choice and standards in deprived areas and as schoolduggery highlights the majority of free schools are situated in deprived areas.
This is great.

The issue you appear to have a problem with is the fact that families with FSM are so far chosen not to attend.
I do not see how you can blame the free schools for this as their admissions are fair and open to all.
Perhaps the constant criticism from Unions and the left wing have put some people off. Addittionally you need to remember that these schools are new and to apply to be in the first intake does take a leap of faith. No doubt as time moves forward and the schools become successful they will reflect the communities they are situated in, which after all is the main aim.

So all please do not cherry pick your quotes and research. You need to look at the bigger picture.

Keith Turvey's picture
Fri, 18/11/2011 - 18:59

Guest, you have no idea or proof of whether such families have chosen not to apply to these schools or whether they have been put off by the schools' policies on things such as curriculum, school uniform or whatever. The fact still remains that a government who claim to want to tackle under achievement for disadvantaged children from disadvantaged backgrounds are pursuing policies that in practice run counter to this. There is no excuse and your attempts to defend the policy look increasingly desperate and I'll informed.


Keith Turvey's picture
Fri, 18/11/2011 - 19:00

Sorry ill not I'll. Autocorrect is a pain.


Guest's picture
Fri, 18/11/2011 - 19:17

Keith,

You have no proof either.
The facts are that the majority of free schools are in disadvantaged areas and this added to the pupil premium this should begin to have a positive impact.

Unfortunately only yesterday the Guardian ran a piece entitled Permanent underclass is emerging, which highlighted poor education as the main cause. This education occurred under Labour. So while it's ok to celebrate the achievements of some local schools this site should also be looking at why so many were failed by Labour Education policy.

Lets give these new free schools an opportunity to succeed where previous governments failed.

JimC's picture
Fri, 18/11/2011 - 19:27

There is much to do here, much more than I thought.

Firstly you have not acknowledged your earlier error so allow me to help you.

I said “I’m not convinced that the purpose of free schools is to appeal or raise educational standards for the poor."

You said to me "you have been so in the dark about government policy and statements that you “are convinced that the purpose of free schools is to appeal or raise educational standards for the poor.”"

At the very least this is a misquote, if you don't believe you did it check your posts. Do you understand?

If you answer yes we can move on and work on your interpretation or lack of it. It the likely cause of your misrepresentating my position.

If you answer no please tell me which bit of the misquote you are stuck on and I'll try and help you a bit more.

Oh and well done for quoting me correctly twice in your last post. I feel we are moving in the right direction.

Keith Turvey's picture
Fri, 18/11/2011 - 20:01

Guest, as I said higher up the thread where the schools are situated is completely irrelevant. Also I didn't claim to have any proof of why disadvantaged families aren't securing places at the new free schools. The fact remains that free schools appear to be doing nothing to address the issue which the government constantly claims it is trying to address through its policies.

With regards your claims about the Guardian and this site not highlighting similar failures of policy under labour. This is also incorrect. I investigated labour's admissions policy and the failure of lotteries to really address the issue of segregation in schools and this was reported in the Guardian at the time. I have also raised this issue on this site in the past. There's plenty of postings on this site referring to how Labour essentially pursued the free market reforms of education instigated by the previous Conservative Government.

The fact is what is most relevant is the education policy of the day and the impact it is having now. As I said your defence of the policies of the present, particularly the free schools policy are becoming increasingly desperate and irrelevant.

Allan Beavis's picture
Fri, 18/11/2011 - 20:36

JimC -

No I did not. I have checked. This is what I said:-

"I am surprised that on a thread specifically about Free Schools not serving disadvantaged pupils you write that you 'are not convinced that the purpose of free schools is to appeal or raise educational standards for the poor' when it is most emphatically one of the stated aims of the coalition!"

Even if there had been a misquote, you yourself originally said:-

“Did the government actually say that the aim of free schools is to serve the poorest communities? I thought they were all about choice.”

and on your 11th post -

“I’m not convinced that the purpose of free schools is to appeal or raise educational standards for the poor.”

Either way – the facts speak for themselves and they come straight from the mouths and pens of the government. I think you would make yourself much more credible if you could provide evidence that the government did not implement the Free School policy with a key aim being helping disadvantaged children.

This is not about the possibility of a cut and paste error but about your denial or ignorance about Free School policy. So can you please explain how you can make assertions which contradict what HMG has said is one of the key aims behind the Free School policy? Were you ignorant of them or are you trying to play them down?

Allan Beavis's picture
Fri, 18/11/2011 - 20:54

Guest -

I never suggested I have a problem with the fact that the poor might not be applying - that was thrown in by JimC in a futile attempt to divert attention away from the fact that the statistics show Free Schools are not serving disadvantaged children, despite this being a key aim of government policy.

The questions you might like to ponder are these - might free schools be manipulating their admissions and catchments to exclude the disadvantaged or is their conduct offputting to many of the disadvantaged? Whatever reason - one of the key aims of the government policy has either

i) failed because it has not provided for the poor or

ii) it has succeeded because helping the poor was a smokescreen for a policy which was designed to be unequal and cater to the already advantaged.

These schools are indeed new but they are very expensive and the posterchildren for these schools were divisive, polemical figures who - in tandem with the government - justified the great expense of creating these schools at the cost of decreasing the budget for maintained schools by attacking and denigrating existing schools and giving the lie that the system was "broken".

You might also look at the much bigger picture and contemplate how the American/New York Charter School model, on which the Free School policy is based - has failed to raise attainment in the US, failed to provide for the most disadvantaged, led to widespread punitive measures in schools as well as cheating whilst at the same time lined the pockets of profit making companies and enabled wealthy philanthropists to set the education agenda.

If you want "evidence" try Charter Schools in the search section and follow links.

Allan Beavis's picture
Fri, 18/11/2011 - 20:57

Guest -

Please provide evidence that previous governments "failed". I am very interested to see your research and statistics from impartial studies which showed that attainment declined over the whole country and if so, nuanced interpretation of why.

Guest's picture
Fri, 18/11/2011 - 21:12

PISA has shown us falling down the International Tables. Not great.
Not total failure as the Academy Policy was positive.

Allan Beavis's picture
Fri, 18/11/2011 - 21:13

Guest - More nonsense. Education under the last time the Conservatives actually won an election - Mrs. Thatcher - was at its lowest ebb. Labour improved education thanks to investment. And poor children benefited in schools under Labour (unlike, it seems, in Free Schools which isn't really doing much for them).

Poorer children closed the educational achievement gap on children from wealthier backgrounds during Labour’s last term of office, according to a comprehensive Financial Times analysis of exam results achieved by 3m 16 year-olds over five years. When looking at a basket of core GCSE qualifications – sciences, modern languages, maths, English, history and geography – the FT found a sustained improvement in the results achieved by children from the poorest neighbourhoods.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d82fc3cc-eab3-11e0-aeca-00144feab49a.html#axzz...

Allan Beavis's picture
Fri, 18/11/2011 - 21:19

Guest - Academies were created by the last administration. The successful Academies that the coalition are taking credit for were launched by Labour, so the children getting the good results in GCSEs announced this year were children who started school under Labour. Many Academies were rebuilt schools with top resources, thanks to BSF and a huge schools budget.

There are failing Academies but Gove chooses to keep quiet about these because he likes to spin the lie that Academies = success (so he can take the continuing credit) and maintained schools = "Total Failure" which is actually a total lie that you appear to have swallowed.

The coalition have cut BSF and slashed the education budget but spent £130m on a first tranche of Free Market Schools educating 5,000 children. On top of that, they have presided over a catastrophic economic strategy which made swingeing cuts to public services with no plan for economic growth in the private sector. I doubt whether Osborne will do a U-turn of his dismal policy. To do so would be to prove Labour were right all along. In the meantime, cuts to education leaves the door open to free market libertarians who will end up running schools, putting profit before learning. I predict the Tories will ruin education as they did under their Thatcher glory days.

Janet Downs's picture
Sat, 19/11/2011 - 11:35

Guest - you mention the fall in the position of UK pupils in the PISA tables. The steep fall can only be upheld by using the 2000 PISA results for the UK and these have been discredited by the OECD, the organisation responsible for the PISA tables. The OECD found that the 2000 UK figures were flawed and warned that they should not be used for comparison. This is made absolutely clear in the OECD document linked below (paragraph 2 and footnote).

The only PISA results which can be used for comparing educational achievement in the UK are those from 2006 and 2009. These do show a slight fall in position but more countries entered in 2009 and many of these, like Shanghai, were strong performers. If the actual scores are compared, there is little statistical difference between the scores for 2006 and 2009 in reading, maths, and science. UK pupils achieved the OECD average in reading and maths, and above average in science. The Trends in Maths and Science Survey 2007 (albeit smaller than PISA) found that English students in both the age groups tested were the top performers in Maths and Science in Europe. This achievement is not mentioned by the present Government.

The supposed catastrophic fall in PISA league tables since 2000 is constantly cited by the present Government as one of the main reasons for its educational reforms. But this claim is false.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/8/46624007.pdf

Guest's picture
Sat, 19/11/2011 - 12:33

Thanks Janet.
However as the PISA figures show we have indeed slipped down the International Tables and shown absolutely no improvement in Maths and English.
Over the same period our spending on Education went up but performance stayed level / lower.
OECD also states that the difference between disadvantaged pupils grew over that period.
Yet the major contributors on this site think it's all ok and Allan is blaming Thatcher and the current coalition for the issues.
13 years of Labours Education, education, education resulted in a massive increase in spending but no improvement.

Allan Beavis's picture
Sat, 19/11/2011 - 13:08

Reports show that there was improvement - the FT is but one example that I gave you, so your argument here might increase in credibility if you provided some evidence that standards did not improve. Would you like to offer them please?

I might point out once again that the coalition's education "reforms" are based on the American Charter School system, which has failed to increase attainment in the United States. If you insist on judging by results only, then I would like to remind you that currently the US fall below England in the OECD rankings.

I have never said comprehensive education has been "ok". Those of us who support it have been arguing for years that more - not less - investment is required and that resources have been inadequate and unequal. I am not "blaming" the coalition for the "issues" but I am questioning whether their ideologies, which impose free-market deregulation on public services, will have an adverse effect on the education of our children. Education has always need more investment and under Labour the amount spent translated into an improvement in standard and a closing of the achievement gap between rich and poor.

In America, this achievement gap has not happened, despite the billions poured into the Charter System. Their existence hasn't raised standards in public schools either so the question is why is Gove and his chums transferring over an expensive and failed model when Osborne's failed economic policies is ensuring that the education budget - slashed by 60% already - will remain woefully inadequate.

rosemary fergusson's picture
Sat, 19/11/2011 - 16:57

err call me cynical but I had assumed that Free schools were set up by middle class parents in deprived areas ( living there because they had mistimed the anticipated gentrification of the area) and weren't happy with their kids mixing with the local children at the local school . I know some schools have been set up by philanthropic bodies ; is there any data on the raison d'etre of the free school bodies ?


Janet Downs's picture
Sun, 20/11/2011 - 13:01

Guest - you are forgetting that the Trends in Maths and Science Survey 2007 found that English pupils outperformed European pupils in Maths and Science in both of the age groups tested.

Recognising that achievement, however, is not to be complacent. Guest rightly points out that UK spending on education increased during Labour's tenure. However, it's worth noting that from 1995 to 2000 spending on UK education as a percentage of Gross Domestic Produce (GDP) fell from 5.2% to 4.9%. This rose to 5.7% in 2008 (slightly less than the OECD average of 5.9%). This continued to rise until by 2009 there were only seven OECD countries spending more per pupil than the UK when it was found some countries who spent less than the UK per pupil were, neverthless, achieving a similar average performance as measured by PISA (Germany and Hungary).

The OECD pointed out that it is not just how much is spent that matters but also how this money is invested and how well the money is directed to where it can make the most difference. The OECD recognised that the Pupil Premium was a step in the right direction but that the free school/academy programme, while increasing choice, needed to be carefully monitored if it were not to impact negatively on the already disadvantaged. Early signs are that the free school programme is not helping as many disadvantaged pupils as was first claimed.

Allan pointed out above that the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged pupils is shrinking. Again, this isn't a call for complacency. Neither does it follow that "major contributors on this site think it's all OK". There are many threads which express concern about the state of UK (or rather English) education and, in particular, discuss the plight of disadvantaged pupils. Here is one:

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/07/socio-economic-disadvantag...

Other references:

http://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/TMO01/TIMSS2007Executivesummary.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/2/48631582.pdf (page 229 for expenditure on education as % of GDP in OECD countries)

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/8/46624007.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/document/38/0,3746,en_2649_34569_47283558_1_1_1_1,00... (Reforming education in England in OECD Economic Surveys: UK. Not freely available on internet but for details of how to obtain a copy follow the link)

Guest's picture
Sun, 20/11/2011 - 13:51

Janet,
Are you now saying that we should not believe the PISA survey that shows there was no improvement in English and Maths?
Which should we believe ? You have been quoting from OECD and PISA so it seems strange that you would now claim other surveys are more reliable.
I am unfortunately not surprised.

Janet Downs's picture
Sun, 20/11/2011 - 14:46

Guest - it does not follow that because I quoted the TIMSS survey that I believe OECD is false. That is a simplistic conclusion. I'll let OECD have the last words which refer to another international survey, the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) as well as TIMSS.

"Although average PISA tests scores, measuring cognitive skills of 15-year-olds, for the UK are close to the OECD average, they trail strong performers such as Finland and the Netherlands in achievements. Average performance among 10-year-olds, as measured by PIRLS and TIMSS scores is however relatively strong in an OECD perspective."*

Note the phrase "relatively strong in an OECD perspective".

If it is possible for OECD to discuss PISA scores in the light of PIRLS and TIMSS, then there is no reason why others should not be able to do so without being accused of inconsistency. It's a pity the Government does not compare all the international data - it might result in a more sophisticated, balanced and accurate picture. If it studied all the international evidence then it might devise more effective ways of tackling the problems that do exist in English education rather than pushing through policies such as free schools which, as Fiona pointed out at the start of this thread do not seem to be helping the disadvantaged to the extent the Government claimed they would.

*page 98 Reforming Education in England in OECD Economic Surveys UK 2011 (for link see above)

Guest's picture
Mon, 21/11/2011 - 09:16

To clarify. I was agreeing with Andy Smithers.
We need to give the Free School policy, working together with the Pupil Premium, time to bed in and continue to encourage all children to attend their local school.

Janet Downs's picture
Sun, 20/11/2011 - 13:16

Rosemary - it would be very interesting to know what kind of consultation took place when free school proposers were assesseing "demand". How did the schools present themselves? What kind of questions were asked? Were "expressions of interest" counted as actual demand for places? Did the consultation reach as many people as possible or were the respondents self-selected (ie those in favour of the scheme)? However, it's almost impossible to get information from the DfE about these schools.

Mr Cameron said that two-thirds of the free schools that opened in September had been oversubscribed. That meant that one-third were not. The free school in Reading, for example, only had 16 pupils out of an anticipated 25. It hopes to have between 100 and 120 pupils after four years but at the present rate of enrolment it would only reach 64. And yet this school, like the other free schools, had to show there was a demand before it was approved.

http://www.cfbt.com/teach/cfbtschoolstrust/freeschools/afreeschoolforrea...

Andy Smithers's picture
Sun, 20/11/2011 - 15:14

Janet,

You have just said that OECD think that Pupil Premium, Free Schools and Academies are positive steps in the right direction.
We all obviously need to give these policies time to make a difference and not be some quick to criticise our local schools.

Allan Beavis's picture
Sun, 20/11/2011 - 19:16

Smithers -

The stated key objective of Free Schools to help disadvantaged pupils has been revealed to have failed. The American model - on which Free Schools are based - have also failed to reform education in that they have made little impact in raising attainment across the board and especially for the poor. The coalitions' trumpeting of a handful of high performing Academies are based on schools that were established by the previous government, so it is wrong for them to step in and take the credit. The credit should be taken not just by Labour but by the local authorities and staff. The government's economy policy has failed and threatens to plunge us further into crisis and to cut even more money from a woefully inadequate schools budget.

Instead of making comments which add nothing but fantastical wishful thinking, would you let us have some evidence that shows the reforms are helping the poor and the trend is moving towards higher attainment, especially when cuts are being imposed on the majority of community schools and squandered into Free Schools that have so far failed to deliver on one of their key missions.

Guest's picture
Sun, 20/11/2011 - 15:57

Agreed


rosemary fergusson's picture
Sun, 20/11/2011 - 17:39

Hey ho I almost wish that I'd never started taking an interest in education and convertor academies ; machiavellian methods of the current gov to create educational segregation is just shocking. RE the free school in Reading you mentioned . It's not really in their interests to recruit 25 pupils, Using the ready reckoner on the D of E page they will be getting £8,825/pupil compared to £6,688 if they reach 25 pupils. Compare that to the £3,659/pupil of a 200 strong priamry with 15% FSM. It's due to the flat grant/annum of £95 k . THink I'll start up a free school for me and my mates 5 kids in year 3's ...we should get a total of £109,441 or £21,888 per pupil.


Pages

Add new comment

Already a member? Click here to log in before you comment. Or register with us.