"Free schools are set up for two reasons – to help underperforming children or to provide places where there currently are none. The biggest crisis is in London and the south-east, and this is just as much in middle-class areas as deprived ones. These two different motivations are the reason the overall picture looks confused," said Rachel Wolf, director of the New Schools Network (NSN), which advises free school proposers, in the
Guardian.
Originally, free schools were supposed to provide much-needed places or help the disadvantaged. It now appears that “disadvantaged” has been replaced with “underperforming “. According to Wolf, many free schools are set up to help “underperforming children” so theoretically there should be a higher proportion of struggling pupils admitted to schools allegedly set up to tackle underperformance. It will be interesting, therefore, to discover how many of these free schools take a higher proportion of pupils whose attainment is below-average at the start of key stages 1 and 3 than neighbouring schools.
As it is unknown how many underperforming children are admitted to free schools, perhaps we can gain some insight by looking at whether
second wave free schools are in areas where there’s a high proportion of failing schools. NSN lists* 20 local authorities (LAs) with the highest percentage of Ofsted failed schools at the end of 2011. But second-wave primary free schools were established in only three of these areas. At secondary level, second-wave free schools opened in only three of the 20 LAs.
Perhaps Wolf was thinking of LAs where the proportion of pupils reaching the expected levels at ages 11 and 16 is lower than the national average? Again, NSN lists* such LAs. And again, the vast majority of second-wave free schools were provided in areas outside the 20 LAs where raw results were worst.
So are free schools being provided only in areas with a shortage? NSN lists* 20 LAs where there is an expected shortfall of school places in 2014/15. It should be expected, therefore, that the majority of free schools would be in these areas. But new primary free schools were provided in only four of the primary shortage hotspots (5 primaries in total) and extra secondary places (three schools in total) only appeared in three of the 20 LAs where forecasts showed that extra places would be needed.
But Wolf added a third reason – this time reverting to the seemingly-discarded one: disadvantage. But her first thoughts were not with the pupils. Instead she emphasised the involvement of teachers by saying “passionate teachers want to support the very poorest pupils in communities where results and aspiration have been low for generations.” But the figures above show that most free schools are not opening in areas where results are low and
FullFact found it’s not yet clear whether free schools are benefitting the disadvantaged. Finally, it’s not necessary for “passionate teachers” to take time out from teaching in order to set up free schools to help disadvantaged pupils in low-performing areas – there are thousands of teachers who already do this with no fuss or fanfare.
*NSN lists can be dowloaded here:
primary and
secondary
Comments
This means that the school can’t hope ever to fill its 1050 places.
Not sure what you mean by this. Why not? The school can increase its PAN whenever it likes. The only constraint would be space at the site - and that wouldn't appear to be an issue here.
Not strictly true. The school can only increase its PAN as part of determining its annual admissions arrangements and it needs Secretary of State approval to vary it once determined other than where there has been a major change of circumstances. As the PAN is determined 18 month ahead of time this is not exactly 'whenever it likes'.
The key thing is that a school that is its own admissions body can increase its PAN for the next appropriate admissions round without consultation or seeking permission from anybody.
The new Admissions code says:
1.3 Own admission authorities are not required to consult on their PAN where they propose either to increase or keep the same PAN.
1.4 Admission authorities must notify their local authority of their intention to increase the school’s PAN and reference to the change should be made on the school’s website. If, at any time following determination of the PAN, an admission authority decides that it is able to admit above its PAN, it must notify the local authority in good time to allow the local authority to deliver its co-ordination responsibilities effectively. Admission authorities may also admit above their PAN in-year.
1.5 Any admissions above the PAN as set out in paragraph 1.4 above will not constitute an increase to the PAN.
http://www.thisistotalessex.co.uk/Brentwood-s-Becket-Keys-school-conflic...
And now, for 2013/14, the PAN is up again - back to 150 which means it would fill its 1050 places if it attracted the 150 pupils a year. This still leaves Brentwood with over-capacity and the possibility of another re-organisation.
http://www.becketkeys.org/Admissions%20policy%20for%202013.pdf
I thought that had been the case for a while. It was simply the norm that schools didn't do it if it would be seriously detrimental to other local schools. Instead they would take part in longer term consultation and planning.
No it hasn't "been the case for a while". The code was promulgated in Feb 2012 and the new 'no-consultation required' regime starts with effect from 2013.
Rebecca - the new Admission Code which allows schools to increase their PAN as long as they let the LA know is likely to be put into effect with little regard for other schools. The "no consultation" clause has already been used by a grammar school in Bourne, Lincolnshire, to increase its PAN by 30 pupils a year. It did this within days of becoming an academy in January 2012 and weeks before the Code came into force in April 2012.
Pages
Add new comment