The Free Schools experience.

Paul Atherton's picture
 285
Over the last 18 months, I've been watching the involvement and engagement of the free schools process and I've been so encouraged by the people involved, that I genuinely believe it can do nothing but good.

Many of the arguments on this site seem to focus on the fact that LA Schools could be improved.

But that seems to miss the point.

The Free School (dare I call it) movement. Seems to be more about engagement by parents & community than an LA School could ever achieve.

This, in main of course, has been highlighted by the Governments push to keep the idea in the media and the high profile types who've been the initial founders (e.g. Katharine Birbalsingh & Toby Young).

In addition to the freedom this type of school offers to parents, pupils and teachers alike.

But I think Free Schools like Academies before them force communities to think about education in a different way to the existing LA system.

I was brought into Bexley Business Academy as it transferred from a failing school to an Academy. And what was noticeable was not the exam results but the complete turn around of attitude from the pupils.

They wanted to be in the school (truancy was at an all time high previously), were filled with aspiration (most students came from backgrounds where there expectations of future progression were kept low) and could generally engage with all the new facilities that were offered to them (there was much wrong too - I was brought in because, they'd had an entire TV Studio installed but nobody had been taught how to use it).

This may not have translated into exam results but anecdotally at least, translated into more well rounded, positive children joining society than the schools previous incarnation.

I think what Toby Young says in the we produced Free Schools video about Working Class parents wanting the best for their children, is reflected in his schools intake and why I think this is genuinely a good thing for UK society.
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook

Be notified by email of each new post.





Comments

Allan Beavis's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 19:20

And you seriously think there is no correlation between politics and policies?!!??


Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 15:54

Is it not possible for readers on this forum to distinguish between Politics (with a big P) which is dictated by Governments against the actualities of applying those intiatives born out of them?


Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 19:23

ALAN READ MY LIPS - P...R...A...G...M...A...T...I...S....M


Allan Beavis's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 16:16

Paul -

This comment is completely non-sensical, which suggests you are running out of steam.

Sarah's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 18:35

Paul. I'd like you to try to explain this - it doesn't make sense to me. The free schools policy is a politically driven policy not an educationally driven policy because it is silent on how it will actually improve education and raise standards. If it's aim is to improve educational provision for the most disadvantaged it needs to explain what are the mechanisms by which it will do so - and how that differs from the way that other sorts of schools are able to improve. Gove says that the quality of education is all about the quality of teaching - but there is nothing inherent in the free school policy which would drive up the quality of teaching. The opposite is true in that it allows free schools to employ unqualified staff and in other countries it's been shown that staff tend generally to be younger and less well qualified in such schools compared with others. I'm waiting to hear what it is the free school will do differently - over and above getting a few parents interested on day one (whose children will move out of that school in the space of a few short years).


Allan Beavis's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 19:38

Paul -

Pragmatism? Try and persuade that huge section of your "community" excluded from your Free School accepting only students you deem deserving, teaching them a narrow curriculum you deem correct to read your lips rasping out P..R..A..G...M..A..T...I..S...M. Pretty ugly sight I'd say

Sarah's picture
Sat, 10/03/2012 - 13:11

Surely a far more pragmatic policy would be to give all schools these supposed 'freedoms' without spending lots of time and money changing their status. Creating more surplus places in some localities at a time of record demand in others is far from being pragmatic - which is why it smacks so loudly of ideology. It would be more pragmatic to only allow free schools to open in places where the extra places are strongly justified - and to use scarce capital to improve the condition of existing schools rather than creating new ones. This policy is the polar opposite of being pragmatic.


Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 17:16

Alan,

What is it you don't understand by that sentence?

Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 20:05

Hi Sarah,

For ease of understanding (many people on this forum are clearly unused to threads or subthreads) If I've asked someone directly a question (i.e. named them), if you want to comment on that thing can, you please ask me a question in a seperate sub-thread (you've answered questions on behalf of Rachel, Alan & Adrian now - and it appears to have blocked them all for answering for themselves).

It's a dacroum thing. that let's others read things with more ease, and aids with the flow of debate.

Many thanks.

Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 17:15

Sarah, Janet & Alan,

You must all accept that Government Policy is enacted by Government.

To change that policy requires a change of Governement to one that is prepared to rescind it.

We, as individuals do not have that power. All you can do is wait for the next election, campaign and hope you get the outcome you

And you also accept the Free Schools policy has already been enacted.

Therefore all that is left from a pragmatists standpoint is to decide whether to try and make the best of the situation and support your favoured outcome or Don Quuixote it.

Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 18:10

Alan,

Again, no evidence to back up your vaccuous claims.

But for you Don Quixote, is the preferred option?

Sarah's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 18:26

Wrong Paul. We do not simply have to sit back and watch the government tell lies with statistics and spend tax payers money without any real transparency, conducting an ideological experiment whose end game is the privatisation of our education system. We can and we must continue to expose the flawed reasoning behind the free school and academy policy.

Making the best of a bad deal isn't pragmatic, it's abdicating our responsibility towards future generations of children whose education will be affected by this policy. Michael Gove is on a mission to fragment the English education system and to turn it into a free market. Those who believe that this is the wrong policy will continue to expose the weaknesses in his argument that Academy status is a magic bullet. Surely if the policy is going to fail it's better to minimise the impact of it as far as possible rather than sitting back and waiting for it to happen.

At the very least I feel we must prevent the government's propaganda from being swallowed wholesale by those who are not close enough to the situation to challenge it intellectually.

I have yet to hear one compelling argument for free schools which isn't about pandering to narrow parental self interest.

Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 19:35

Alan,

Stick to the points presented to you.

Don Quioxte

Allan Beavis's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 20:44

Paul -

We are in possession of free will. If I had wanted to answer I would have done so, so please do not flatter yourself that people are desperate to engage with you or ask you questions. I also believe that a great many people here have the intellectual incapacity which even you possess to cope with threads and sub-threads. As you are suddenly so concerned with "Decorum", you might wish not to patronise them with the clarity of your pre-judgments.

Paul Atherton's picture
Mon, 12/03/2012 - 15:31

Alan,

I mean this with all good intention. Get help.

If you don't want to engage with me then don't.

But if you do, have the common decency to do so properly.

Otherwise everything you write is just a pointless annoyance.

Of course if you're happy doing that, then your agenda is clear to all concerned.

Allan Beavis's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 17:57

Paul -

What I have accepted is that your appalling "pragmatism" is to embrace the educational ideologies of the government so that some already advantaged people can take advantage of an increasingly unfair system to selfishly create and claim what they feel is their entitlement. Presumably, the disadvantaged can go hang? It is really sad, given that you yourself have flaunted and publicised you own childhood and background, that you have now support a system that in your own words:

"“…give they type of education to the students you want in a way you’d like to”.

Selective. For the deserving few deemed deserving by the group of parents pretending to act for social cohesion but in reality acting selfishly. You are "making the best of the situation" by effectively trampling all over the people who thought they would have the sympathy of a man whose own history suggested he might have some empathy. Sadly, your beliefs reveal you to be out for yourself and you care less little for the collective good. Appalling and shameful. I'm afraid.




Allan Beavis's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 18:26

Paul -

The evidence is out there and in other posts and comments on this very site. It is so in the public domain I can only imagine that your extreme gullibility has rendered you hoodwinked by propaganda.

Janet Downs's picture
Sat, 10/03/2012 - 09:59

The Free schools/academy conversion programme is a flagship policy of this Government.

It follows, therefore, that no discussion about the free schools policy can be divorced from politics. Paul rather sniffily dismisses arguments against free schools as being "politics" but it is difficult to see how the consequences of the setting-up of free schools can be kept separate from the politics of equity.

It is actually a cop-out to ignore the underlying politics of a policy especially when the one who brushes aside the politics is one who is enthusiastic for the policy and stands to derive some benefit from it.

Tim Bidie's picture
Sat, 10/03/2012 - 20:57

"A closed mind is like a closed book, just a block of wood."

Keep politics out of education.

Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 15:56

Janet,

You said:

"It follows, therefore, that no discussion about the free schools policy can be divorced from politics"

I agree.

But I've discussed neither the policy or the politics in my point. Merely the application.

How something came into being is not as important as disovering what happens once it is.

Sarah's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 00:40

If only governments would actually take any notice of this. The current one, more than many, has an exceptionally political stance on education.


Allan Beavis's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 16:39

Paul -

Do yourself a favour and have a look at Sweden and America to see what happened to their Free Schools. Make a discovery that millions have already made.

Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 17:19

We've addressed the non-sensical behaviour of examining other cultures and systems (I refer you back to my German Industry reference with associated linnks).

This is an evolving idea. It was modeled in part on examples of good practices globally, but as the interactive and drive of the movement is reliant on those involved in it. It's impossible to evaluate it's success or downfall until it's been fully implemented and the results factored over time.

Adrian Elliott's picture
Sat, 10/03/2012 - 13:33

On the issue of freedom,I was at a governors meeting the other night at which it was said that our local authority was under growing pressure from the DfE because so few schools had become academies. It is an effective authority which is Conservative controlled and,as far as I am aware hasn't put its schools under the slightest pressure not to become academies.

So why should the DfE, if this government favours localism and freedom for schools to determine their own future,be concerned at all if they decide to remain with the local authority.

Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 18:00

Adrian,

As it's a Conservative Council do you not think the pressure to change would have come from the Government (to force through academies) rather than the Civil Service?

Sarah's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 18:41

There are groups of DfE officials visiting local authorities up and down the country with low numbers of academy conversions putting a great deal of pressure on them particularly around forced conversion of those schools in an ofsted category. There has been a massive movement of staff around the DfE in the last 18 months - many of those with experience of education have been shunted elsewhere. The number of civil servants working in the Academies and Free Schools units is frankly amazing - there are hundreds of them.

I think the point Adrian was making was that many local authorities have taken a neutral stance on Academies but that many schools have decided they would rather stay with the local authority than convert - this choice is being effectively removed from them by forced conversion often against the wishes of the local community and the school leaders and governors.

Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 20:10

Sarah,

Would refer you to my earlier point vis-a-vis forum etiquette.

Sarah's picture
Mon, 12/03/2012 - 17:03

I apologise unreservedly to Rachel, Alan and Adrian if they think that I have in any way prevented them from responding to a specific question from yourself that was addressed at them. However, this is a public forum and as such the debate is generally open to all to contribute to. Whilst I do sometimes name a contributor, specifically to help to identify the particular point I am responding to I would always welcome observations from anyone who feels inclined to comment and don't generally feel the need to explain to other adults how to conduct themselves.

Surely if your arguments hold water you would not object to a challenge from any quarter? Perhaps you are not as confident in them as you seem?

Paul Atherton's picture
Mon, 12/03/2012 - 17:34

Thank you Sarah.

Just to remind, I wasn't saying I wouldn't address any point you'd care to raise.

"For ease of understanding... If I’ve asked someone directly a question (i.e. named them), if you want to comment on that thing can, you please ask me that question in a separate sub-thread..."

Thanks

Allan Beavis's picture
Mon, 12/03/2012 - 21:21

Sarah -

Absolutely no need whatsoever for you to apologise. It would be better if Paul made a coherent and rational case for his support of the Free School Movement rather than veer off on irrelevant and distracting tangents.

Adrian Elliott's picture
Sat, 10/03/2012 - 13:35

Sorry. God knows where the 'hanging O' came from. I must have pressed 'submit' inadvertently.


Adrian Elliott's picture
Mon, 12/03/2012 - 13:02

Adrian,

'As it’s a Conservative Council do you not think the pressure to change would have come from the Government (to force through academies) rather than the Civil Service?'

Yes - via civil servants

Paul Atherton's picture
Mon, 12/03/2012 - 14:33

Adrian,

Clearly not walked the corridors of power if you think the Civil Service could be persuade to the Government's "Whipping boy" - excuse the pun.

They are clearly apolitical. Politicians and parties come & go but the Civil Service remains.

Just witness any Select Committee to see the difference between the two.

I understand why the DFe as Public Servants would want all the power - but that doesn't necessarily equate to the desires of the Government or political lobbying.

Adrian Elliott's picture
Mon, 12/03/2012 - 15:29

I don't need to be 'walking the corridors of power' to know that the civil service both executes and promotes government policy. A doctorate in political history and twenty years teaching politics taught me that. I had personal experience of civil servants pushing the advantages of government policy in a very similar situation to the academy programme - grant maintained status under the Major government.


Paul Atherton's picture
Mon, 12/03/2012 - 16:14

Perhaps a more detailed analysis of how this is actually being perpetrated may assist in me in understanding your point, if you'd be so kind.

My argument, was simply, why do you think the DFe aren't acting for their own benefit, but rather concluding their doing the whipping of the Government?

howard's picture
Mon, 12/03/2012 - 19:44

The reason Adrian thinks the DfE is acting on behalf of the Government, and not on its own behalf, is quite simple. It is the role of the civil service to implement the policies of the democratically-elected government of the day. One of the main planks of the government's reform of the schools system is the promotion of academy status among currently maintained schools. (Gove is on the record as saying he wants all maintained schools to become academies). Therefore, in contacting local authorities to encourage them to consider academy status for schools for schools in special measures, DfE civil servants are simply implementing government policy.


Paul Atherton's picture
Wed, 14/03/2012 - 16:30

Howard,

Whilst we all know the text book definition of the Civil Service we also know, that in real life, it just doesn't work that way.

Otherwise Gordon Brown would have blown up the country before he left.

The reality, whilst not as bad as Sir Humphrey's day (Yes, Minister), is still that the Service holds all the power and can assist or hinder Government policy at whim.

Following the war on Whitehall has made for interesting reading over the past 3 decades (I was in the trenches of the civil service in 1984, in Wales and was on the Governments side because it was better for my claimants). The departure of Steve Hilton is going to see even more clashes.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2011/03/david_cameron_versus_civi...

But I have to admit surprise that so many people think the Civil Service would simply follow the wishes of ministers if they didn't meet their needs.

You'd think enough pop-culture Radio & TV written by or with ex-civil servants (Yes, Minister; The Thick of It, Clare in the Community) would have permeated into the ether to at least get people to question this notion?

Perhaps Adrian, who lectures on the subject, can shed some light?

howard's picture
Wed, 14/03/2012 - 23:17

Paul
I prefer to follow the principles of Occam's razor which states that "other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one."
My explanation of what is alleged to have happened is as follows;
* It is the role of the civil service to implement the policies of the democratically-elected government of the day.
* This Government's policy is to encourage as many maintained schools to switch to academy status.
* The DfE is pressuring local authorities with low academy take-up to increase the rate of take-up.
* If this pressure is successful, more schools will become academies in line with the Government's policy.
Therefore, in pressuring local authorities, the DfE is simply doing its job of implementing government policy.
Now let's try your explanation of what's been happening:
* It is the role of the civil service to implement the policies of the democratically-elected government of the day.
* This Government's policy is to encourage as many maintained schools to switch to academy status.
* The DfE is pressuring local authorities with low academy take-up to increase the rate of take-up.
* If this pressure is successful, more schools will become academies in line with the Government's policy.
Therefore, this DfE pressure has nothing to do with government policy but is the result of a power-grab by civil servants.
Now which explanation seems the more rational and reasonable?

Paul Atherton's picture
Thu, 15/03/2012 - 09:16

Howard,

Wow...WOW!!! That abstraction of an argument is worthy of Alan Beavis.

But I see where your problem lies.

You're basing your hypothesis on alleged assumptions whilst I'm concluding mine on known facts.

Ignoring the failures of your rationale of occams razor which is predecated on the basis that the hypothesis has to be proven on tested principals (and you've made a common mistake with the definition too).

Your logic is flawed.

You argument, if applied say to an example like speed limits, works like this:

We need to keep drivers & pedestrians safe.
We apply a speed limit to roads & promote the benefits of driving safely.
We make this a legal requirement

Therefore

Nobody breaks the speed limit.

Simplest conclusion - But TOTALLY WRONG.

You also try & present my side of the argument applying your own logic, which infers I accepted that just because the Civil Service are meant to be doing something, that they are actually doing it (as in my speed limit example).

But I didn't. I proved that not to be the case.

So your presentation of my side of the argument is not remotely close to what it is.

The argument actually goes like this:

You:

The Civil Service always does what the Government requests of them in regards to policy even if it's not in their own interest or even to their detriment.

Me:

The Civil Service look after their own interests first and will only support Government Policy when if fits with their values.

If your rationale was correct, why were the Civil Service striking against Pension Cuts?

That's part of the Governments Policy too.

Following your logic, Civil Servants would be embracing that ideal and pushing for those cuts as quickly as possible.

The fact that they're not, proves my case!

Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 08:14

What would you like simplified Alan?

I didn't think it was a difficult argument to understand but happy to try and put it into simpler terms so you can comprehend - though maybe in the light of day, it might be a little clearer for you anyway...

Allan Beavis's picture
Fri, 16/03/2012 - 01:19

Paul -

This is sailing close to the incoherent gibberish you can overhear coming out of the mouth of someone in any club on any night of the week whose senses are emboldened by the same narcotics that have frazzled their exhausted synapses.

Samuel Morris's picture
Mon, 12/03/2012 - 21:40

I'm very sorry if this has been asked or addressed but going all the way back to Paul's original post, it is clear that both Free Schools and Academies have made communities think about state education more. Paul the reference you made to Bexley Academy is naturally merited because of the improvements made by that school to its students education given its history. However while a change to the governance and leadership of that school worked, it has failed at other Academies. This is not a massive surprise as the picture is the same for LA schools up and down England. How many times has a poor HT left a school and been replaced by a better HT who has had a positive impact on attendance, behaviour, and staff morale leading to better student outcomes? This would be the same for an Academy or a Free school or an LA school. My point being it is about good school leadership in the school. Having more good teachers than satisfactory ones etc etc.

A schools governance model is a factor but in my view not always decisive in changing a schools performance over a sustained period of time. The improvement in some Academy schools especially the original Labour sponsored Academies is hardly a major surprise given the level of resource some of them received, that was far greater than there nearby LA schools. The more recent fast track converter Academies was a win - win for the coalition. The Academy brand would rise as these 'Outstanding' or 'Good' schools converted and to be fair in most of those school individual context it was the right move. i'm sure very few school leaders made the change down to their 'politics' however. I personally would like to know how many converter Academies since May 2010 had a deficit budget when they converted? the LACSEG would have been a very handy windfall and probably stopped quite a few teacher redundancies at the time. Its just my view formed by my own conversations with school leaders on my travels.

The Free schools movement will not in my view make any great impact positive or negative on state education in this country. I think it will slowly fade away to be a footnote in the history of state education in this country. The concept of Free Schools I like, but it's not in our education culture and eventually as this parliament rolls on the money for establishing these schools will dry up, and be harder to come by. I'm sorry that I am not evidencing my views with any articles or web-links its all just my own view from the coal face of being a member of an SLT in a large Secondary school (LA School) and a 'good' one according to Ofsted (2012)

The Academies question has been asked by our Governors naturally. They wanted to know if we were missing a trick here or being left behind as others took up the Academy 'freedoms' around us. Our current stance to remain an LA school is not based on the politics or the agenda, but on our own context and future school development plan. Our LA have openly stated that they would not stand in the way of any school that wished to take up Academy status, they will even assist you if you would like. Its very nice of them to offer of course, but to their credit they have not come out and said quick change your status the ship is sinking. These DfE civil servants may well be zipping up and down the motorways of England visiting County Hall's to encourage local members to press the LA officers into action to send schools the clear message that it is conversion or doom, but this has not happened to my knowledge with our LA. The LA have made no secret that they are being hit hard financially and have a few legal challenges in the fire also. They are not kidding the schools in their area that everything will be the same as it once was in terms of their own capacity to support schools who perhaps are not in danger of falling below floor targets.

I know they are trying to re-invent themselves at quite a speed. Perhaps not before time if they themselves are to be able to survive in the new educational landscape. They are trying to form relationships with Academy Trusts so that they can help broker deals with schools in their area. they are hoping to support school improvement by being more flexible and securing the own income steams.

All this is now the reality, but that does not mean that schools need to feel that they HAVE to become Academies. Some schools (mainly Primary) are fearful that the LA house is being taken down around them. its a bit like the three pigs, with the Academy trust or Academy option if you wish to convert being that brick built house option. However many school leaders on the ground are still not convinced. this does not make us all Trots either!

I won't lie, it does feel like the remaining schools left nationally not to convert are being herded into the Academy cattle shed, mainly because of changes to the environment around us. Many Governing bodies are fearful that they will be turned into academies because of floor targets or will be left behind as an LA sink school while all others around them change their admissions policy to leave only SEN and those children with behaviour issues left. Its naturally not like this by its the perception for many school governors and it drives them to change.

I have read many documents that have been cited on this site and elsewhere. I have read and re-read the White Paper about 100 times. I don't personally buy lots of the rhetoric especially linked to parental influence or more autonomy for school leaders. As an LA school our parents are in and out of school often, they are all surveyed at least once per year formally and have various parent forums and parent events that they come to to pass their views As a school leader I have lots of autonomy already. Perhaps the freedoms around pay would be useful but its not a deal breaker to opt for Academy status.

We can do most of the things an Academy can do now in reality. I'm not ruling out being an Academy however. It remains an option. But probably a business decision rather than an educational one if I'm honest. To date I have not met a friend or a colleague who has told me that being an Academy (self converter) has made any noticeable difference to the children's experiences at school, with the exception of a new uniform. The staff have noticed some differences like the HTs new zest for the Capability policy....to quote a senior colleague in a school. .

I am very sorry for the long winded ramble, but the real question still poses itself. Why would changing every school in England into an Academy lead to widespread improvement in state education over say the next 20 years?

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Tue, 13/03/2012 - 11:31

Much of what passes in this thread for arguments against Free Schools smacks of distortion and propagandizing to me.

For instance, Allan Beavis keeps on asserting that there is some plot to privatize education and says that the proof is that some schools are already being run by private companies.

NO free schools are run by private companies.
Nor, so far as I am aware, are any academy chains private companies. ALL free schools and academies (according to the DfE website) are run by Academy Trusts or bodies that are essentially education charities, which rule out any profit going to the trustees.

Some academies and free schools can hire private companies to provide services (mostly back office stuff) just like LEA schools hire private companies to do catering and other ancillary services.

Under Labour (not Gove) some independent education organizations took over running education for some local authorities (in part or whole) in places like Islington .... this Coalition government doesn't seem to have extended that.

Sarah keeps banging on about how free schools will drive other schools out of business by taking away their pupils. This certainly won't be the case in London any time soon - as has been discussed, there remains under-provision in places like Lambeth and population is increasing in many boroughs. A new free school is no different to a new LEA school in this respect - it provides extra places that the local community needs.

Sarah also asks what freedoms (curriculum related/pedagogy related etc.) free schools can exercise that LEA schools cannot. The answer is that they can offer the curriculum/teaching style that the parents want, rather than what the bureaucrats/edu establishment want. The fact that the pathfinder free schools like WLFS are so over-subscribed suggests that a heck of a lot of parents want something different to what is on offer.

Sarah also has this mantra about schools having to benefit ALL local kids, not just the ones that attend them. What actually does this mean? In what sense do my kids benefit from schools other than the one they attend at the moment? What is true is that some schools do NOT benefit the kids that attend them. They do them a disservice. Most of these are LEA community schools (at least where I live). The whole point of free schools is to empower parents and teachers to create schools that are better than what is on offer already. If they do so, others can learn from how they do it. Wouldn't that be something that benefits all?

Allan Beavis's picture
Tue, 13/03/2012 - 12:42

Ricky -

Apologies in advance if I was careless in my writing, but can you tell me where exactly I state that some schools are already run by some private companies? A quick trawl through my comments throws up the following remarks:-

"...giving free market, for-profit companies contracts to service schools."

"You refuse to acknowledge the role that Free Schools and Academies are playing in throwing open the doors to privatisation, yet you claim you do not support privatising schools."

"Well it does, I’m afraid, because that is the real policy behind the ones that are administered as a tranquiliser by the government to dull our senses from understanding that education is being put bit by bit into the hands of free market profiteers..."

"...make the claim that school reform empowers parents, get public opinion behind the scheme whilst perpetuating the myth that the system was “broken”, then slowly put the schools into the hands of chains and service providers who step in to provide the services forced away from local authorities."

None of these comments show that I say that some schools are being run by private companies, so it is not me who is distorting and propagandizing here but you!

You might like to read up on the DfE granting a contract to IES:-

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/12/free-school-21m-private-co...

So I think you will find that not only has the Coalition extended the handing out of contracts to companies but is doing so at an unprecedented speed and scale.

Janet Downs's picture
Tue, 13/03/2012 - 14:11

Ricky - IES Breckland, a free school, is to be managed by a profit-making Swedish company with no experience of running English schools. Although the Trustees are supposedly in charge they have handed over responsibility to the company. Toby Young, free school pioneer, wrote in his book that in such circumstances the parent group (who presumably would make up some of the Trustees) would have no input apart from marketing.*

In theory, academies and free schools are charitable bodies. However, they can outsource to a profit-making education provider and this may not be in the best interests of the pupils. Parents at the International School in London accused Cognita, the profit-making company running the school, of "milking" it for profit.

Although academy chains are theoretically charities they can provide a good income to their chief executives. The CEO of E-Act is the highest paid man in education (reports that he had left E-Act after a rift with other executives seem to have been unfounded - he says he's only been on holiday). And the National Audit Office warned there could be a conflict of interest if academy sponsors also supplied services to their academies. This practice might not be the best value for money and also takes autonomy away from academy heads.

You are correct that some independent education organisations were given contracts to run education services in some areas. This appears to have been successful in Islington according to Ofsted 2009. However, this wasn't the case in Bradford. On a recent "Any Questions", Baroness Warsi complained about poor education provision in Bradford in the last ten years - this was the time when it was run by Serco. Bradford council took back control of education in July 2011.

You are right that if there is a need for extra school places then it is difficult to see how anyone could object if these extra places were being provided by a free school (and local authorities by law now have no option but to choose a free school or an academy for a new school). However, planning for school places needs some co-ordination - local authority plans could be thrown into disarray if a free school were allowed to open which resulted in excess places, or if a hoped-for free school didn't materialize. Many free school proposals, however, do not seem to be driven by need but demand as is happening in Beccles where a proposed free school threatens the established secondary school.

Your point about schools providing what parents want is an interesting one. Teachers are professionals, know what they are doing and want their pupils to succeed. Education is more likely to be successful if teachers and parents co-operate. But how far should parental demands be allowed to influence what goes on in a school? Suppose one parent, or small group of parents, want a school not to bother with, say, Personal and Social Education (PASE) but offer more maths. How would the school balance this demand against the demands of other parents for their children to receive PASE and the rights of all pupils to be offered it?

You say that "pathfinder" free schools are oversubscribed because they offer something different. Apart from WLFS and Latin, which is offered by some other state schools in any case, what exactly do they offer that other schools do not? They cover the same subjects (as should be expected) and no doubt they teach them in the same way as other schools. It is a myth to say non-free schools don't offer the same curriculum.

There is no evidence that free schools will create schools that are better than what is already provided. Some will, some won't, in exactly the same way as other types of schools.

Sarah's point about school provision being expected to benefit all children is supported by evidence from the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) which said that the free schools/academy conversion policy would need to be monitored carefully if it were not to impact negatively on the disadvantaged. And OECD also found that the best-performing school systems globally tended to be those that were the most equitable and did not segregate children academically or geographically.


*Toby - if I have misquoted you, please let me know. I haven't got access to your book - I'm too much of an IT neanderthal to have an electronic reader.

Guest's picture
Tue, 13/03/2012 - 16:56

Ricky,

I have to say an excellent post which summarises things well. That said, as I previously pointed out to Paul A on this thread there is little point trying to engage some of the major posters on this site. There is no doubt Allan will attempt to distort what you say and never address issues being made, he may add a bit of bullying and insults as well but at least you tried. Hope you enjoy the many rants coming your way!

Sarah's picture
Tue, 13/03/2012 - 16:56

Ricky. You may believe that there is no plan to privatise state education but there are significant indicators that the Tory party would be happy to see this happen if they could achieve it without an NHS style blood bath. Gove has been open about having no objection to it and the education reforms are threaded through with reference to the market. This is no accident - it's a clear move away from perceiving education to be a public good and towards education as a commodity. Whereas most of the published research is unequivocal that schools working together collaboratively is a feature likely to drive improvement the current policy inevitably relies on competition between institutions.

It's not just 'back office' services which free schools can buy - they can outsource everything including the provision of teaching itself.

As for my 'banging on' about the impact on neighbouring schools when free schools are not created in line with need - this is a real problem and it shouldn't be so flippantly dismissed. The sustainability of educational provision - including the provision of a broad curriculum - is highly dependent on budget. If a school loses a large chunk of its budget to other schools it will struggle to maintain staffing levels and educational standards.

If local authorities are to be the commissioners of school places then they should be allowed to do so in the interests of good strategic decision making without free schools being parachuted in where there is no strategic need. Just because there is generally a shortage of pupil places doesn't mean that the location chosen by a free school is the right one to provide those places - it could be difficult to access via public transport for example or too close to other good schools to represent good value for public money.

Let local authorities decide where school places are needed - they are best placed to do this. I'd like to see communities deciding what sort of places they should be. Many parents would like a community school but this choice is denied to them - why is that? There are thousands upon thousands of excellent community schools. At the moment the tail is wagging the dog and many of these free schools providers are just roaming around looking for a community to serve instead of the other way round!

In terms of benefiting ALL children - what we need is a system which provides a good education for all children and in particular addresses the particular needs of those from the most vulnerable communities - not a policy which addresses the very narrow selfish demands of the articulate few. Providing a choice for some will always mean denying choice for others - which is why 'choice' is the wrong aspiration for education. Parent's when asked don't say they want choice - they just want good schools. There is nothing in the free school policy which makes it more likely than not that this is what they will get.

As for distortion and propaganda - this is what you hear coming out of Michael Gove's mouth and published on the DfE website - it doesn't represent the attempts at providing the balancing arguments that I've seen here.

Guest's picture
Tue, 13/03/2012 - 16:59

Sarah,

Could you provide any evidence to back up your claim that parents do not want choice?
Thanks

Sarah's picture
Tue, 13/03/2012 - 17:04

http://www.edexec.co.uk/news/1810/parents-don't-want-choice/

Survey after survey has shown that choice is not a priority for the majority of parents

Allan Beavis's picture
Tue, 13/03/2012 - 17:18

Sarah -

Yes. What parents actually want is a very good local school in their community. If all schools were good and had equal and outstanding provision and resources to teach every single child then there would be no need for "choice". Finland has choice - but the options of excellent schools everywhere are the same. Sadly for people like Guest here, "choice" is another word for "selection" really. It is very sad that government policy under the coalition has encouraged self serving instincts at the cost of social cohesion and even sadder that so many people uncritically swallow the government line that Academies and Free Schools offer the choice of a better education. Well analysis on LSN and elsewhere shows that this is simply not true and maintained schools still outperform Academies. Free Schools in any case are a side issue. I suspect the government are so alarmed at the cost of setting them up and keeping them going that they will all disolve into the Academy pot. They are after all the same thing, the only difference being that the first tranche were promoted as giving parents, teachers, the community the "freedom" and the "choice" to set up a vanity school and play hard and fast with the Admissions Code.

Thank you also for providing the evidence. Guest always demands it from his Troll corner but he never offers any to back up his own prejudices.

Pages

Add new comment

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