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

Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 11:34

Not a man of your word Alan/Janet. Sad!

"You have dismissed the efforts of a great many people" - EVIDENCE?

Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 18:33

Alan, Why are you now talking Macro Economics. Free School. Wy I'm encouraged by the people behind them. That's it!


Ricky-Tarr's picture
Thu, 08/03/2012 - 17:50

Sarah, you say that "central planning IS economically efficient". But it just isn't. It certainly wasn't in the Soviet Union and it hasn't been in Lambeth. If you include 6th form, something over 60% of Lambeth resident secondary pupils travel outside the borough. Until last year, Lambeth was only able to offer 50% of resident pupils a Y7 place. That jumped to 70%.... but still not exactly a triumph of central planning, is it?


Sarah's picture
Thu, 08/03/2012 - 18:37

Ricky
Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide adequate school places and that's what the vast majority of them do. There has always been a particular issue in London with cross boundary movement which makes planning a challenge. I fail to see how leaving it to the market will make an improvement - care to explain? School place planning is a complex task that involves careful monitoring of demographics, housing development, migration patterns and patterns of parental preference. The availability of capital (and sometimes simply finding available sites)to provide school places is an ongoing challenge. It's an art rather than a science and it's not perfect - but it's certainly better than hoping the market will provide and allowing struggling schools to fail with the consequent disruption to children's education.

Allan Beavis's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 11:39

The evidence is here Paul, in your own words:-

"But this is about seeing people do things for me. After years of nothing, I finally feel people are reclaiming individual responsibility, acting and a re genuinely concern about what’s going on around them."

Do read Melissa's book. It fills in so many gaps.

Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 14:15

OK Alan, let me ask you this. Is this just about spouting your politics or is this to do with children's education in the UK?

If it's the politics - become an MP and go affect real change from the corridors of power.

Or

If it's about the notion education, why not fight to make Free Schools work for the betterment of all society?

Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 16:08

Alan,

I didn't ask for your political allegiances - merely asked you if you're just here to spout your politics, which you then went onto do for four paragraphs.

Definition:

pol·i·tics (pl-tks)
n.

2. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
a. The activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, or political party: "All politics is local" (Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.) "Politics have appealed to me since I was at Oxford because they are exciting morning, noon, and night" (Jeffrey Archer).

As I said, right now you could actually get involved in a Free School. DO SOMETHING. Ensure that it meets the needs of your community, give they type of education to the students you want in a way you'd like to.

That's real community involvement. Grassroots upwards and that's what I've been witnessing.

And yes, if people don't get involved, the companies will probably take over. But right now, today, if everybody decided to take advantage of what's on offer in a Free School, you would have schools run by communities & for communities in a way that's totally immersive and unique to those communities.

I struggle to see how nobody can get excited by that idea?

There are enough people out there embracing this system to know that for them the previous system didn't work (which has had a good 60 years to bed down).

So this feels empowered and proactive rather than sedentary & reactive.

But if people do nothing, then as always, they end up with what they didn't want.

Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 17:55

Alan,

"But right now, today, if everybody decided to take advantage of what’s on offer in a Free School, you would have schools run by communities & for communities in a way that’s totally immersive and unique to those communities."

We are not an an homogonised society and never will be. To ignore that fact is to try and apply a dictum that suits your needs and nobody else's.

Allan Beavis's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 19:17

Paul -

Macro economics? Is this your way of diverting attention away from the issue under discussion?

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

Your own words reveal the unpleasant truth behind the Free School policy as much as your now openly acknowledged dogmatic faith in a system that divides society and offers more to the already advantaged. I think you've pretty much exhausted your pool of excuses and U-turns. Your words state you are in favour of starting up schools that teach only what you want them to teach and to a selected type of student that you favour as being worthy of that type of school. It’s sailing close to educational apartheid, Paul. Shameful

Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 13:50

Alan,

No. I'm discussing the realities of a situation whilst you consistently attempt to address the hypotheticals.

I didn't metion finances - you did.

In fact you keep attempting to drag this thread into an argument about politics (which has been done to death all across this site) rather than my point - which is the very positive actions people are taking in their communities.

But what is the purpose of your unsubstanitated rhetoric against someone who's only point has been to praise community cohesion?

Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 17:46

Actaully Alan, you offered me the last word and then didn't honour it.

But what is my argument Alan, you seem not to grasp it?

And as for your diatribe. You seemed to have missed the very essence of the sentence

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

Which was obviously directed at you!

You're the only person here that seems to have only one view on things and believe your way is right and eveybody should follow your doctrine.

I've consistently said that the notion of Free Schools is an idea that is well worth pursuing.

I've never advocated privatising schools, in fact quite the contrary.

I don't think Free Schools should be the only option.

I've agreed that the closure of the ease by which parents and community groups could set them up by the DFe is wrong and would be prepared to challenge that.

But I've said the idea is worth doing and supporting in the best way for all those communities involved.

And those people (parents, teachers & pupils alike) who are benefiting. And their not, as you would like to think, doing anything untoward. Some are keeping schools open that would have been closed by their LA's, others trying to find a solution to the fact there weren't places for their children etc (I've posted a link earlier in this thread to all the Free Schools that have opened and their reasons, in addition to interviews with parents, teachers and pupils found on BBC News).

So when you talk about community Alan, you actually just mean people who think like you, do you?

Becuase all of these people live in communities, have children they want to protect and ideals they wish to share.

The majority of the parents that are embraing the Free School idea that we've spoken to are disadvantaged. They don't understand politics, feel let down by their LA's and are oft forced to send thier children to failed or violent schools. They don't feel they can compete with the Middle Class advanatge, knowing which schools are good. Being able to up sticks and move to get to a better catchment are etc. You know all these arguments I'm sure.

My brother belived you had to go to a good Univeristy to get anywhere. But when he got there discovered that he wasn't made for Academia. Fortunately he had the option of transfering to a Polytechnic where he shone and since went on to manage the building of the new wing on the Natural History Museum.

If he only had one educational offering - he would have failed.

The fact that there were alternatives ensured that he could flourish in society and add to it.

That's why I think this is important. What's your motivation?

Paul Atherton's picture
Mon, 12/03/2012 - 15:26

Alan,

Only you could contest what another person has said, when he's said he said it.

The post, as this one, was assigned to you and read:

"As I said, right now you could actually get involved in a Free School. DO SOMETHING. Ensure that it meets the needs of your community, give they type of education to the students you want in a way you’d like to."

I think you would have to be spectacularly stupid not to appreciate that this was clearly addressed directly to you. When I make general points, I don't address them to individuals.

You seem intent on not understanding the basic tenets of what I'm saying and cherry picking to answer questions - rather than to be honest.

You've ignored the 2,500 interviews we've done, dismiss experience as an irrelevance (and I know why, when you're life experiences are limited it's impossible to see the world from other people's way of life - we affectionally call that "the bubble") - you're the kind of person in a crashing aeroplane who would ask for the guy that had only ever read the manual on how to fly and not the guy who'd never read the manual but has a 1,000 hours flying time) and are more interested in sophistry.

You have no evidence whatsoever to support your notion that:

"My motivation, to state the obvious, is to ensure that all children get an equally good education in a good school."

Because under the current system that clearly isn't working and you seem to not want to try a system that has the potential of doing just that.

Allan Beavis's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 14:44

Paul -

I have already addressed this with you so I am surprised you are bringing it up again. I am not affiliated to any political party so my arguments and opinions are not calculated to advance any political ideology. It is clear I am advocating for equal access to quality education and it is not at all clear that Free Schools work for the "betterment of all society". They haven't "bettered society" where they have been in existence such as Sweden and the USA but you cannot and will not acknowledge this. Social cohesion has a much higher chance of success when the achievement and income gaps between the poor and wealthy are narrowed. Under the current coalition, the income gap is widening, meaning poverty and unemployment rates rising. Women and young people between the ages of 16 and 24 are suffering the most under government cuts and a "no-growth" economic policy; unemployment amongst black youths is even higher. Meanwhile, the rich are not affected by cuts to public services, much of their wealth is beyond the reach of the taxman, who is penalising the most disadvantaged and the middle-income earners and school policy is now built so that this tax payer funded institution will be open to the profit making schemes of multi-milliion pound companies. Add to this the contractual ability for Gove's new schools to play fast and loose with the admissions code and with Academies already showing a higher rate of permanent exclusions, is it any surprise that the more disadvantaged students stand less chance of getting into, and getting to the end of, a good school?

You willfully make repeated attempts to find a political motivation behind my comments and you fail to see that my criticism of the current coalition is because it is this coalition who are in power and pushing through their policies. I would hold the same opinions if any other party were in power and doing the same. Is that clear?

When so many people are increasingly becoming more excluded from society and from schools, you explain how a handful of Free Schools, unaccountable to the local community, adrfit from local authorities but in the hands of edu chains and serviced by private sector providers, with a narrow curriculum and an obssessive focus not on learning but on teaching to the test, free to choose their admissions constitutes "betterment of all society"?

The question you might like to ponder is - why not fight to make all state schools work for the betterment of all society. Free Schools do not have the monopoly on social cohesion. Far from it - as the polemics surrounding them has shown, Academies and Free Schools are divisive, polarising issues.

Allan Beavis's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 17:33

Paul -

This comment of yours - "give they type of education to the students you want in a way you’d like to" basically sums up why you support Free Schools and what Free Schools are really about. It's all "about selection and the selfish needs of the most vocal. This appeals to the most sharp elbowed and narcissistic within a "community". What it - and you - fail to address or even recognise are the needs of everyone else in that community not presumably deserving of a place in your Free School for types only you wish to include. That's not what you are trying to palm off as community involvement. Appalling.

Allan Beavis's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 18:19

Paul -

There is a huge difference between accepting that we are not a homogenised society and workinng towards narrowing the income and attainment gaps in society - we currently have one of the widest between rich and poor amongst the Western industrialised nations. It is quite frankly absurd that you make the accusation that to ignore this is to "apply a dictum that suits your needs and nobody else's" when in your last post you blatantly and without reservation gave full support to using the Free School policy which you pretend will benefit society but in your own words gives "the type of education to the students you want in a way you’d like to". I think this dictum suits your needs and not everybody else's. I am suprised that, given your own difficult and excluded background which you have shared - perhaps flaunted - here, your sympathies now lie with that already advantaged section of society concerned only with supporting and promoting their own interests. This says a lot more about you than it does about me, Paul.

Allan Beavis's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 16:35

Paul –

For someone who wanted to the last word, you don’t half go on flogging a dead horse!

It is pointless debating with you because there is an absence of anything approaching a solid foundation to your arguments or your beliefs, which appear to be no more than an over zealous reaction to the rhetoric presented by the DfE, an uncritical media and those two polemicists you so admire – Birbalsingh and Young. In reply to your comment elsewhere about my not providing evidence on this forum, I suggest you look at my other posts and comments and find the links there. The debate about Free School did not start with your post Paul.

When challenged, you attempt to shift the sands and in doing so, you reveal more of why you support the Free School “movement” and how your understanding surrounding the issues of Free Schools (and whether you like it or not, these issues are going to be political, financial and sociological because the policy affects people and their future) are fatally limited.

Your final sentence above is risible, I’m afraid, in its attempt to turn the clock back on what you said earlier, a comment which revealed how self serving the Free School movement is and how misguided or self interested you are.

Here is what you said about Free Schools:-

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

I’ll just repeat what I replied to this:-

“Your own words reveal the unpleasant truth behind the Free School policy as much as your now openly acknowledged dogmatic faith in a system that divides society and offers more to the already advantaged. I think you’ve pretty much exhausted your pool of excuses and U-turns. Your words state you are in favour of starting up schools that teach only what you want them to teach and to a selected type of student that you favour as being worthy of that type of school. It’s sailing close to educational apartheid, Paul. Shameful”

Sorry to add to your confusion about this whole issue, Paul, but how does that square that up with “social cohesion”?

Allan Beavis's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 18:23

If you don't advocate the privatising state schools then why on earth are you backing Free Schools? Why do you make the statement that if parents and the community get it wrong then schools will end up in the hands of private companies when this is already happening? Are you completely ignorant of this?

I don't believe your quote “…give they [sic] type of education to the students you want in a way you’d like to”. was directed at me at all. It as a general call to anyone who wants to get out a divide communities by thinking they can set up schools with a narrow curriculum defined by what that steering committee itself has deemed appropriate for the type of children they want educated in "their"school.

When I talk about community Paul, I am acknowledging the diversity of people that make up a community, so please refrain from your attempts to smear what I mean by community when you have been exposed as backing policies that split communities. You endlessly bring up your own personal life experiences, but personal experiences are never a good basis for policies for the simple reason that they are personal. You talk about more than one educational offering - has it ever occured to you that a wide curriculum in all schools, all of them equally well resourced (rather than have money taken away from some and handed over to Academies and Free Schools), each equipped to deal with all abilities of children and with open and fair admissions is a more equitable system? How is a divided educational system in a country with an ever widening attainment and income gap suppose to make society flourish?

My motivation, to state the obvious, is to ensure that all children get an equally good education in a good school. Your real motivation is to ensure that some children get the education you think they deserve, at the cost of others losing out. You see Free Schools as standing alone - as if the policies that engendered them, the divisions and unfairness they are creating and the way they open the doors to privatisation have nothing to do with the impact of opening a Free School.

Paul Atherton's picture
Thu, 08/03/2012 - 09:57

Hi Rebecca,

Who assesses how well LA's perform their tasks about School planning?

For example, there seems to be a complaint nationwide, that there is a shortage of Primary School places - should council's not have for seen that problem - they'd surely know their census figures, number of children registered in their boroughs etc. and predicted population growth decades ago?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/16/michael-gove-shortage-pr...
http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/policylobbying/children/schools/primary...

But most UK councils all seemed to have embraced the money from the BSF, but surely that money would have been better spent (as Mike Baker says in The Guardian) on the primary problem and not on the secondary. But I can find no record of a Council fighting for that at the time?

Reading the available research, it implies Councils were aware of this problem since at least 2003 and most were surplus in cash at that time. Yet it seems that it's only in the last 2 years did they decide to start doing anything about it - that seems like very poor planning?

So it would be really useful to know, who does and how, the assessments to gauge how successful a Council is at education planning?

In relation to your "Sink schools occur rapidly and easily and most LAs are aware of the signs", how do we evaluate differing boroughs as clearly some, as you point out, aren't successful at doing this?

"Wasteful bureaucracy" is just that and not as I think your suggesting, I'm saying, i.e. that all bureaucracy is wasteful. McDonald's is a bureaucracy and there's not a shed of waste in that system.

But duplicate form fillings, meeting for meetings sakes, etc. consultation to no end (hence my Monty Python's People's front of Judeah link) - that's all extremely wasteful

Could you clarify your third paragraph for me - especially your "understand that the main reasons for education not being as you would have it be", what do you think I want education to be?

Sarah's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 00:01

Actually the birth forecasts have been shown to be up to 20% adrift of actual live births coming through which is one of the reasons some urban authorities have a bigger problem than they expected. Local authorities were not allowed to target BSF funding towards pupil places because the government priorities at the time were to target funding towards areas of disadvantage and poor educational standards as the aim was educational transformation. This left many authorities without any BSF funding at all dealing with population growth in the best way they could with limited capital. Local authorities time and time again made this point in consultation with the government and many ignored their agreed Primary Capital Strategies in order to divert capital funding into additional pupil places - at odds with government policy. Local authorities provide data every year about availability of pupil places so it's no secret - the problem has been that the emphasis over the last 10 years has been the removal of surplus places and local authorities were damned for having high levels of surplus. Those that didn't strip the surplus out are in a much better position now. As for the argument about bureaucracy I find that to be just right wing rhetoric - no organisation can function without administration and no public service should operate without consulting its citizens.


Sarah's picture
Thu, 08/03/2012 - 16:45

Paul
I have a number of issues with your original post. Firstly you believe that the free school policy can do nothing but good. Clearly this is as yet untested but you do not appear to have considered that the objective of providing an education system is to do the best for ALL children, not just meet the wants of the articulate few. Locating a free school in an area with spare capacity in other schools is very likely to affect those other schools directly through reductions in their budgets which translate into reduced resources for teaching. What about the education of the children already in those schools – is that somehow of lesser importance? Is it really a good use of scarce financial resources to create surplus capacity in other schools simply to allow some parents greater ‘choice?. Running half empty schools is a serious drain on their resources and I find it hard to justify economically or educationally having seen what happens to schools in this position.
You argue that no LA School could ever achieve the level of engagement you have seen. I would have to dispute that. There are many schools with very high levels of engagement from parents and the wider community via governing body membership, PTA involvement or the running of extra curricula activities.
I would challenge you to be specific about what ‘freedom this type of school offers to parents, pupils and teachers alike’ that can actually make the difference. This is the fundamental weakness of the free school/academy argument. There is no freedom that has been given that schools do not already have or that could not be afforded to every school regardless of their status – this is what gives rise to the belief that this is nothing more than an ideological policy whose end game is the privatisation of the education system.
The turnaround you perceive to have occurred at Bexley Business Academy has happened in other schools – it can be the result of a change of headship or of sustained support by the local authority – the examples of schools whose fortunes have been turned around without academy conversion are legion. Conversely the evidence that academy status is fundamental to improved standards or ethos is weak and not compelling.
Some of the proposals nationally are clearly a protest campaign against the closure of middle schools. Anti closure protesters have used the free school policy not as a way of providing better schools but as a means of undermining the strategic planning of school provision by the local authority whose statutory duty it is to ensure sufficient (i.e. not too few or too many) school places. In a number of places the government have allowed free schools to take over premises that the community and their democratically elected representatives had decided would be better used for other community facilities or disposed of to allow investment in reshaped educational provision. So much for localism! In other cases it appears that it’s a route for inexperienced deputy heads to get themselves a headship – more of a personal employment opportunity than a desire to help local children. In other cases the proposers are proprietors of fee paying establishments who would like to create independent schools without having to charge, whilst still charging fees for nursery and allowing those who pay to have priority for entry into the tax payer funded provision once they reach statutory school age.
Yes, the birth of a new school can be something which parents and the community can get behind and engage with. But we have to be sure that the motives are pure and that it’s being done in the best interests of ALL the children in that locality and not just serving the selfish interests of the few.

Ricky-Tarr's picture
Thu, 08/03/2012 - 17:55

"I would challenge you to be specific about what ‘freedom this type of school offers to parents, pupils and teachers alike’ that can actually make the difference. "
Freedom to set the curriculum.
Freedom to choose a different style of pedagogy.
Freedom to spend their money as they like.
... not bad for a start.

Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 14:06

Sarah,

There's a terrible tendency to misquote of this forum.

I didn't say "Firstly you believe that the free school policy can do nothing but good" at all.

What I said was

"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."

So, not policy, but the people involved. And that seems to have got lost in these arguments. I've stated numerous times, that there is not enough evidence of any kind to know if this idea will work or not. But it's unquestionable, that the parents, teachers and pupils who are involved in it, are excited and engaged in a way that they didn't feel with the LA offering.

And that's not a bad thing. They felt something wasn't working so they tried, at least to fix it.

"...is to do the best for ALL children..."

That one statement, right there, is the fundamental flaw in the argument.

Whether in the comprehensive system or the private - it is never going to be best for ALL children. Some will suffer either way.

The old adage of "you can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time" comes to mind.

But your point "there are many schools with very high levels of engagement from parents and the wider community via governing body membership, PTA involvement or the running of extra curricula activities." may be valid but I've never seen it in the same way - which is my point.

Right now the media coverage on the subject is getting people involved that otherwise wouldn't be.

But I know from bitter experience that PTA's are a type of body that many parents don't feel like engaging with - because it all becomes a type of petty politics.

But I am genuinely interested to hear about some specific LA schools and their successes?

Sarah's picture
Thu, 08/03/2012 - 18:27

The extent of freedom to set the curriculum is far from clear - it's doubtful that Gove will give Academies a free hand at this. You only have to look at today's announcement on GCSEs to see that he isn't going to relinquish control lightly. I'm all ears to hear what different style of pedagogy is open to Academies that other schools do not have available to them. As for the freedom to spend money as they like all schools already have this with Local Management of Schools - and Academies in chains may end up with substantially less freedom than individual LA maintained schools have had.

And none of these things provides any evidence whatsoever that it will lead to improved standards beyond what we already have given the level of autonomy our schools enjoy already.

Janet Downs's picture
Thu, 08/03/2012 - 18:33

The "freedoms" given to academies and free schools are illusory. These schools still have to provide the services that the LA provides and they have to administer the pay roll, legalities, and so on. If they join a chain or outsource to an education provider they actually lose autonomy, as John Burn, OBE, an ex-principal of an academy warned the Education Bill Committee. If they are in a school run by a group like Kunkskapsskolan, who sponsor three academies, teachers will be expected to teach in the Kunkskapsskolan way. And the National Audit Office warned that many sponsored academies had been under pressure to purchase services from the sponsor. Not much autonomy there.

And what kind of curriculum do the free schools offer? The same subjects as most other schools. I doubt very much that many of the secondary free schools will opt out of the EBac, for example. And some of them (like Beccles and Saxmundham) will not be offering any vocational courses even though these might be the best option for some of their pupils - they even propose to downgrade English to "functional skills" for those pupils not deemed to be capable of getting a GCSE C.

They create a prison and call it freedom:

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/12/%e2%80%9cthey-create-a-pri...

Fiona Millar's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 14:47

My daughter's school,Parliament Hill, in Camden is a great example of a successful LA school. High FSM , very mixed intake, stunning improvement in GCSE results over the last few years , no dodgy use of qualifications and an outstanding Ofsted. The head has very high expectations but the school also has a vibrant, fun and caring atmosphere. Indeed the senior management is so good that the deputy head has now been appointed head of the Bolingbroke free school in Wandsworth. There are many more schools out there like this and no doubt in time free school supporters will come to see that in the quality of teachers they recruit from maintained schools.


Sarah's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 16:37

you said that 'the free schools process.....can do nothing but good' - assuming that the 'it' in your sentence applies to 'the free school process'. Surely it's not the process which matters but whether the policy itself will achieve its stated outcome which is to improve educational standards for the most disadvantaged communities. There is simply no evidence to support this being a policy which will do 'nothing but good' and strong evidence to show that opening up a school in competition with others which are struggling will have a detrimental effect on other schools. Even if the free school itself provides a good education it's important that it doesn't have a disproportionate effect on the education of other local children - that's the point of my reference to an education system which benefits all children. Certainly when you give advantage to one group it is usually at the cost of creating disadvantage for others. When it's so clear that a policy will disadvantage some children then it needs a compelling case - which simply does not exist in this case. If its impact was nil it would still have to be proved to be good value for money - again the case is not compelling - these are small and therefore expensive schools. They are eating up a disproportionate amount of the available capital for example.

The media aren't much interested in extolling the virtues of the very many good maintained schools with high levels of parental engagement - my experience with PTA's has been quite different from yours. I've found them very welcoming and not at all interested in petty politics - but that's the danger of accepting a policy based on very narrow anecdotal experience I guess.

Tracy Hannigan's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 17:36

Regarding freedom to set the curriclum...there are many of the same requirements for both LA and free schools. The most important things are the same as far as I can tell...and LA schools can request exemption from the NC in addition to taking advantage of the ability to differentiate etc etc. And Free schools can be required by the funding agreement to do whatever Goverment wants them to - the LA can impose no such restriction on an LA school. As far as 'freedom from NC' goes, it seems like spin to me - all schools have the same access to 'freedom' just from different perspectives.

Academies are subject to the restrictions imposed by a single person who may live far away (SoS), rather than in a locally prompted and locally responsive way. I'd see that as a vulnerability. I find the requirements for academy schools, as I understand them, to teach certain subjects in a certain way very alarming.

LA schools also already can buy back from other places than the LA....and Academies/Free schools still have to provide certain services (same as the LA schools)....and now, Academies/Free Schools may also lose the option to buy back services which are very critical to a lot of 'underpriviledged' communities - EWAS and such....so where is the real 'freedom' or difference in the end? Even Ofsted etc are now saying there need to be regional monitors (much like the LA) to keep an eye on Academies....so as I see it, It is a shift of responsibility, not a shift in freedom....

Use of the word 'freedom' in order to create the illusion of a prison, so as to get one's own way...not a great way to model adulthood for our children!

Allan Beavis's picture
Thu, 08/03/2012 - 18:39

I agree entirely Sarah. Once the Academy programme kicks in, I suspect many more parents and taxpayers will realise that the adoption of the word "free" when applied to school autonomy and to the concept of "Free Schools" was a cynical attempt to draw attention away from policy which will do the opposite by eroding local accountability, allowing schools to bend the rules on fair admissions, placing absolute control in the hands of Secretary for Education and, of course, giving free market, for-profit companies contracts to service schools. This is what is behind the government-sponsored denigration of local authorities.


Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 17:34

Sarah,

You must have gone to the same school as Alan to debate in this manner.

I genuinely mean what I say. So NO I didn't mean policy.

So to go on and argue about policy is pointless.

However your last point makes mine

"The media aren’t much interested in extolling the virtues of... good maintained schools..."

As I stated in my opening

"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"

PTA's weren't my direct experiences - they've been my experiences of supporting (mainly single) parents who've felt ostricised from being able to get engaged with the schools their children go to.

Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 17:42

Hi Fiona,

Glad to hear you've got a great school for your children.

Excuse the briskness of the following questions but I'm just heading out - but all useful research.

Do you happen to know how many exam boards the school deals with?

Do you believe OFSTED measures are useful and if so why?

Do you happen to know why the deputy head left to go to a Free School?

Thanks.

P.

Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 13:56

Sarah,

You've not addressed my offer of evidence.

Nor indeed, addressed any of my questions.

If you genuine support Alan, that all I can is Oh!

The one person on this entire forum that not once has been able to suuport his views with any hard evidence.

A guest's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 19:22

The engagement shown by parents setting up a free school may be impressive but after the school is up and running will parents be any more involved in the running of the school than they could now be in a maintained school? Five years down the line will the parents (excluding the original involved parents) sending children to a free school have any more engagement/connection than they would have in a maintained school. Are we going to have new schools set up in areas every few years so people can feel involved?


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

Paul. You have no idea what school I went to and I'm not sure what you actually mean by that - however I do agree with much that Alan says and I absolutely respect his ability to evidence his arguments, a characteristic markedly missing from your own contributions.


Paul Atherton's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 13:53

Guest,

No idea, but that start alone is extremely positive. Momentum requires consitent change and as yet there is so little evidence of anything. Give it another 12 years amd we'll evaluate the first consort results.

Sarah's picture
Sun, 11/03/2012 - 18:07

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/17/secondary-schools-sc...

Here is the data on the number of parents who get their first preference of school. As you will see there are many parts of the country where this is in the mid to high 90%s. What this demonstrates is that the state is actually quite good at matching pupil places to parents' wishes.

Paul Atherton's picture
Mon, 12/03/2012 - 15:02

Sarah,

Thanks for those statistics.

As it says 1 in 3 pupils don't get to attend their chosen schools in London. That's 1/3rd!!!!

Area's where they have fewer density of children, then clearly it's easy to manage.

But the areas of most density, they fail across the board:

Lambeth, Nearly 45% failed to get their choice (Where Katharine Birbalsingh wanted to set up her school) from 2421 applications - that's over 1,000 Children not going to their preferred school
City of London, Nearly 60% failed to get their choice (from only 18 Applications)
Southwark Nearly 50% failed to get their choice from 2520 applications, again over a 1,000 children.

So in London, we have over 26,000 Children not finding a place in a school of their choice. In a year when the numbers for pupils of 10-11 had significantly dropped.

In Manchester & Liverpool they're still letting down approximately 15% of the population.

However, the real story is actually hidden behind the statistics. What I'd be interested in, is how many parents in the UK actually had choice (i.e. were they being forced to go to their local school with no alternative)? What was that choice based on, e.g. the educational attainment of the school or the geographical distance it was from their home?

And only then could we evaluate these figures with any detail and accuracy.

Janet Downs's picture
Thu, 08/03/2012 - 18:50

Paul - in his evidence to the Commons Select Committee at the end of January, Mr Gove described parents who opposed the enforced academy conversion of their school as "Trots" hence Alan's tongue-in-cheek reference to Trotskyites.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmeduc/uc1786...

In an earlier speech, Mr Gove branded his opponents as "enemies of promise", ideologues who were "happy with failure" and so on. It is Mr Gove who is invoking the spectre of Trots, communists, socialist workers and any other horrors demonised by the Right.

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2012/01/i-am-not-%e2%80%9chappy-wi...

And he deserves to be mocked:

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2012/02/%e2%80%9cthe-academy-panto...

Janet Downs's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 09:46

Paul praises the passion of parents coming together to propose a free school implying that this passion is only found in such groups. In Beccles, an equally passionate group of parents oppose the possible establishment of a free school in an area where there is no need. "Any Questions" visited Beccles and one of the questions was about the free school. It's available on "Listen Again" for 7 days since last Saturday so there's not much time left to hear it. The question begins about 25 mins 40 seconds into the programme.

It's obvious from the audience reaction that parents in Beccles don't want the free school and the local Tory MP has written to Lord Hill opposing the school.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b01cks58

Those answering the questions didn't always stick to talking about free schools. Anthony Seldon, Master of Wellington College, for example, talked about the "comprehensive experiment" of the "last 75 years" being a failure. Were comprehensive schools established as long ago as 1937? He also criticised "patronising local authorities and government". As a head in the independent sector perhaps he's unaware that local authorities have little control over what schools do. But he's correct about patronising government of all hues who have tried over the last 25 years to tell teachers what and how to teach.

Baroness Warsi criticised education in Bradford in the last ten years. Perhaps she's unaware that Bradford education was run by Serco during this time. Bradford Council took back control of education services in July 2011. The Baroness obviously hadn't watched the Channel 4 Dispatches programme about how private companies like Serco were making massive profits out of outsourcing - the programme visited Bradford. Unfortunately it isn't available for viewing but the Daily Mail (not known for being a fan of the public sector) used quotes from the programme in an article linked below.

http://www.bradford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/A97D9DED-06D1-493E-9F0F-3CC054F9...

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-84/ep...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365695/Revealed-The-new-public-...

Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 12:21

Hi Sarah,

Really helpful to see evidence to back your position, if you have any? To date, the research I've done wouldn't support that.

For instance Lambeth Council took it on themselves to undermine the Free School project in their borough, against the wishes of many of the residents who live there.

Even though the area was desperate for another secondary school - by all the statistics available - including the council's own.

Council's had to apply for the BSF http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-10682980 many did it very poorly. It was a terrible mishmash of ideas. Private companies, consultants and public sector - truly horrible. My brothers job was to administer the channels and the two sectors should never work together.

But if you have evidence of Councils campaigning against the BSF that would be fabulous to learn. Very keen to discover which councils were working for their residents and not their politics.

When you say:

"As for the argument about bureaucracy I find that to be just right wing rhetoric – no organisation can function without administration and no public service should operate without consulting its citizens."

What I said was:

"“Wasteful bureaucracy” is just that and not as I think your [sic] suggesting, I’m saying, i.e. that all bureaucracy is wasteful. McDonald’s is a bureaucracy and there’s not a shed of waste in that system.

But duplicate form fillings, meeting for meetings sakes, etc. consultation to no end (hence my Monty Python’s People’s front of Judeah link) – that’s all extremely wasteful"

What's right wing about that. Are you suggesting Orwell was a Tory, Gilliam (OK possibly - but unlikely), both of whom commented on the wasteful nature of public sector bureaucracies in exactly the same way - all stereotypes are born out of some reality (1984 & Brazil respectively).

I've been to meetings in various Councils for the sole purpose of discussing when we are going to have another meeting - that's a quick email not a 45 minute meeting!

Of course all of this was a request to Rebecca. But if you do happen to know:

"... who does and how, the assessments to gauge how successful a Council is at education planning?"

Be great, because that's the data I'm really after.

Sarah's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 16:52

What research have you done? Please provide a link. Local authorities will generally only oppose a free school if they consider that it is not necessary or it will actively damage other educational provision in an area. I have seen no evidence nationally that indicates that any local authority is opposing free schools on principle alone (even if they might believe the policy is misguided). Local authorities don't even have to be consulted - even though they have the statutory duty for the planning and commissioning of school places - a somewhat bizarre contradiction created by this policy.

Where is your evidence that BSF was applied for poorly by local authorities? I wasn't a fan of the BSF approach personally - I thought it was targeted towards the wrong things but at least it represented investment in the school estate which the current government has cut by more than 60%. I didn't say that local authorities campaigned against BSF - what I said was that many argued against the criteria on which it was based. Go to any of the reports on BSF and this is reflected. Certainly I was aware through involvement with many other local authorities responding to consultations on BSF that this was a very common view - and expressed openly at events involving DCSF/DfE and PfS representatives.

One person's 'wasteful' bureaucracy is another person's essential administration. I reject the notion that the public sector is any more 'wasteful' than the private sector. And I simply do not believe you that you have attended a meeting whose sole purpose was to discuss having another meeting - that's a caricature and one I do not recognise.

In terms of who gauges success in terms of education planning. Local authorities validate their own forecast data and it is periodically externally validated - a number of audits have found it to be robust in most local authorities. I believe the Audit Commission and PWC have looked at this in the past. The best judges are of course parents - and the fact that nationally the vast majority of parents are offered places at a preferred school is testament to how well the system works. In my area of the country more than 97% of parents are given their first preference primary school for example and more than 90% their first preference secondary school. I am not aware of any parts of the country where there is no place available for a child - although now and again a case hits the news. What is your evidence to the contrary?

Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 18:17

Our research is based on interviews of over about 2,500 people UK wide as well as investigative reporting into LA's. There's no link to provide to that data as yet, but we will air the program later in the year.

Thanks for the Audit suggestion, shall look into that further:
http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2010/08/audit-commission-to-be-aboli...

All large bureaucracies Public or Private (with the exception of things like MacDonald's) are inherently wasteful - it's impossible not to have overlap & duplication. The difference between the Public & Private is the type of staff each employs.

Did you understand the references I gave you in relation to that by the way - you didn't comment on them.

I'll happily supply you the minutes of 3 such meetings if you provide with me a way of delivering them 1 in Lambeth (by far the worst), 1 in Westminster (annoyingly) and 1 in Cardiff (no surprises).

Where are you citing your figures from of 97% i.e. which council and where can I get those evaluations?

Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 12:24

Allan/Janet, And? How is that evidence. I see people reclaiming individual responsibility. How does that suggest “You have dismissed the efforts of a great many people”?


Allan Beavis's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 12:39

"After years of nothing". I think that is pretty dismissive when a lot of people - parents, governors, teachers, head teachers, local government employees, politicians, students, many many more - have been lobbying, arguing and implementing ideas, policies and strategies in the hope of widening access to quality education to ALL children, not just some. Some have worked; others have not. But the over-riding problem since 1944 is that state education has been fragmented, with no unifying base. We have had grammar schools, secondary moderns, faith schools, technical colleges, comprehensives to name a few types. The addition now of Academies and Free Schools, the extension of grammars, private schools sponsoring academies only increases what I suspect you would laud as "choice" but I and many others would see as additions to a patchwork quilt of different "types" of schools which still do not address the fundamental inequities of the system whlist at the same time lining the pockets of companies.

As I said earlier, passion and commitment to reforming state education did not begin with Gove, Young and Birbalsingh and it will not end with them either. But I thought you wanted the last word?

Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 12:57

Janet,

If you genuinely believe in your statement:

" But he’s correct about patronising government of all hues who have tried over the last 25 years to tell teachers what and how to teach".

Then that is the very essence of what the Free School movement is all about.

The freedom for teachers to teach in what & how they choose

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13810941
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-14805308
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14751352

I don't understand why everybody anti-Free Schools thinks if you're pro something you have to be anti something else.

People of all hues speak from experience. And the greater & wider the experience the better.

Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 13:20

"After years of nothing, I finally feel people are reclaiming individual responsibility". You've interpreted it to mean something that fits your world view and has nothing to do with the words I've actually written.

In the context of my posts which state things like:

"The problem with examining quantitative statistics in this way, is they don’t tell you anything useful. They all come to the same thing i.e. that there is “insufficient evidence” to draw a conclusion on one side or another."

"I have no interest in that political debate whatsoever. Free Schools are now in existence, so there is little point fighting over the validity of a policy that’s already been enacted"

"This could be one of those ways – but we’ll all have to wait and see:))"

Why would you attempt to draw the conclusions you do - they clearly make no sense.

Allan Beavis's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 13:46

This is not my world view Paul. It is you own, rather narrow view. It is simply not true to say "after years of nothing". Plenty has been going on but you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it either because you have left yourself unaware of it or because it doesn't fit in with your "world view". The four selected quotes do not support your attempts at backtracking. One of them, about there being "little point in fighting the validity of a policy that has already been enacted" is depressingly defeatist and somewhat at odds with your own, personal struggle with Lambeth Council which you chose to share here. Exactly what IS the validity of a policy here? Again, drawing on your own examples here, was black slavery valid and thus unworthy of struggle? Was the extinction of the Jewish race so valid that resistance to the Holocaust and a war pointless? These were "policies" and, like Free Schools, valid only from just one perspective.

You say that "we'll all have to wait and see" but this passive acceptance of spending vast amounts of cash in a recession on new schools when existing schools are more and more run down and when evidence from America is that the policy stands more chance of failing than succeeding suggests you are going on little more than blind faith. You ask for "evidence" yet provide little yourself over and above what the DfE has pumped into the media. 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. I'm afraid is your arguments and conclusions that make no sense.

Janet Downs's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 18:04

Paul - you have misunderstood my comment about patronising government. Every government since the end of the eighties has believed they know better than the professionals and this Government is worse than any that has gone before. It ignores teachers in the majority of English schools and praises just those which belong to its approved groups - academies or free schools. Have a look at the DfE website which is nothing more than a marketing exercise for these schools.

As I've said before, at least twice, UK was one of only four countries found by OECD to be allowed a large amount of autonomy. It was already there in 2009. No amount of rapturous eulogy about free schools will change that fact. However, this autonomy is at risk if schools are taken over by chains or education providers.

So keen is the Government that all new schools should be academies or free schools that it allows local authorities no choice (so much for localism). It is now law that all new schools must be either an academy or free school. This means that LAs where there is a need for extra school places must find a group willing to run a school. And that planning can be thrown into chaos if another group pops up and the LA ends up with too many places.

Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 18:27

Janet,

Your referring to the politics of it. I', just looking at it from a pragmatic perspective.

Janet Downs's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 18:20

To Paul, re comment above about our non "homogenised" society. The OECD has found that the best performing school systems in the world tend to be those which are most equitable - they don't divide children academically or geographically.

I wonder if you realise how patronising you sound when you talk about people getting up off their backsides and doing something. What do you think teachers in schools actually do? Most are dedicated professionals working hard to give their pupils a good education. It takes hours of planning, assessment and marking as well as delivery to bring this about. No-one can be an effective teacher without being pro-active. Yet Mr Cameron tells these teachers that free schools will smash through complacency. Mr Gove says converter academies and free schools are driving up standards. But the majority of English schools are not converter academies or free schools but the Coalition acts as if these schools no longer exist (unless they can be forced to become academies).

Paul Atherton's picture
Fri, 09/03/2012 - 18:29

Janet,

Again this is the politics.

Pages

Add new comment

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