Tory schools policy - what do you think of idea of allowing parents/others to start their own schools? A good plan or no?

No, I'd like to "fix" failing schools and look at ways of improving attendance at schools with lower pupil numbers - in my area a simple adjustment of the catchment areas would mean one school threatened with closure would instantly have enough pupils to carry on.

There is a difference I think between opting out, because the Government has failed to provide something, and the Government's POLICY being 'if you want decent education you have to set it up yourself'. It's an ideaological difference.

Unless every school in your area is totally full and simply has no room for you, I can't understand why anyone would want to go to all the trouble of setting up a new school when there's an existing one there already.

It may be a crap school but it MUST be easier to throw your weight behind a campaign to improve a failing school, rather than start from scratch to set up a totally new one?

Unless your real problem is that you don't like the demographic of the kids that go to the existing school and your real interest is in setting up a 'gated' school that caters only for your elite (be that based on privelege, race, religion, whatever).

But you want the rest of us to pay for it.

it's crackers, people are generally scared on their local comps before they even have the first clue about them.

hold on, wasn't the national curriculum the government's idea in the first place? hence school league tables etc???

they should really leave it to those that know best. ie headteachers

But those parents aren't all opting out of the state system through choice. I am, I home ed because I want to, but I know lots of families who have done it because they have no other option - there isn't state provision that meets their child's needs.

From a practical point of view a school needs decent building and facilities which cost money. Where is this money to come from? If the state then surely just invest that money in the schools we already have. Setting up a school would surely take months to a year or more of careful planning, recruiting, raising funds etc etc not something a bunch of parents can just get on with by themselves I don't think. I'm all for power to the people but this is just passing the responsibility. Get parents more involved in changing and improving the schools we already have. Listen to the needs of parents and children and make all schools good. What about the children of parents who don't care about their education? They deserve a good school too to break the cycle of low expectation and achievement.

The difference is that those parents are opting out of the state system. This would supposedly be within the state system, but would cost the parents considerably either in terms of time or money.

It is a minefield. Who would govern admissions? Would parents having set up their school be allowed to decide which children were allowed to come to the school? Would they appoint teachers?

actually - given all the talk in the manifesto about bidding to provide services I'd think that it would be quite likely a committee of parents could select and pay someone to run the school with them overseeing it - so they wouldn't have to spend all their time doing it and give up work.

Or teachers wanting to set up an alternative type of school might do it without having to make it a fee paying school.

And the Labour government already say something similar to thousands of parents who home educate or use private schooling because state schooling fails to meet their children's needs without giving them tax rebates.

It is a crazy idea. Who realistically has the time, energy and experience to set up and run a new school? Where would these hypothetical schools be? In our area there just aren't empty fields/buildings lying around ready for 'new' schools.

My opinion is that it's a cop-out by the Tories - 'we can't provide decent schools, so do it yourselves'. But surely part of what we expect a government to do is to provide decent schools? William Hague on the Today programme this morning said that Governments can't provide the best schools. Why not?

Given that some of our taxes go to pay for the state education, would the parents who set up these schools (sacrificing HUGE tracts of time, and potentially money) be entitled to a tax rebate? Because they wouldn't be paid by the government - essentially the Tories are saying 'You want a decent school, you set it up'.

Unquietdad apparently they will use empty buildings or fields. Thats what was said on Jeremy Vine today. Oh and the funding will come from the government...

Never mind the fact that this will create set backs within the schools that the parents do not approve of as the funding for each child is supposed to follow them to their new school.

lol!

I heard William Hague talkiing about this on the radio this morning and am astonished that such a cop out can be touted as policy.

Basically he was saying that if the schools are bad, parents can do something about it by opting out and setting up their own schools.

While I'm not against the idea in principle of parents having the power to set up schools, it's not the answer to the state providing bad schools - the state should bloody well provide good schools, not say "oh we can't be arsed to do it, you take over will you, in between working and bringing up children...we're too busy with other more important stuff than the education of the next generation of citizens"

It would be a different government hocuspontas.

Simplistically, the current Labour government was all about controlling and standarising provision and the Tories are proposing to go the other way and let the 'market' (as in the children and parents) decide what is on offer.

I'm surprised anyone can keep up with the government quite frankly. Only two years ago all early years settings had to comply with the EYFS including Steiner, Montessori and indie schools. Now they are basically saying go and do what you like.

How do you "start" your own school for goodness' sake? Do these proposals presume that there are buildings lying around empty which are suitable to be used as schools? Or that there will be funding to build new ones? How long will that take, and on whose land will they be built?

Why not just concentrate on making our existing schools decent? Or is that too complicated an idea?

I'm surprised you have time to come on here.

Skegness's to-do list:

#work all hours to pay mortgage and bills
#set up and run new GP surgery
#tidy up
#set up and run secondary school for elder children
#make dinner
#create affordable and fantastic childcare for baby
#feed cats
#set up and run new leisure centre
#visit family and friends
#return library books (local library not much kop actually- perhaps will set up and run an alternative in due course)
#set up and run dental surgery
#set up and run primary school for when baby leaves affordable and fantastic childcare
#food shopping (perhaps from community shop that I set up and run?)
#set up and run further education college for when elder children leave school
#invent truly lightweight parent-facing buggy
#redecorate house

I can see how this might work but share Blu's concern about fundamentalism of one sort or another.

Blu - Perhaps parents could be involved more at the local council level (i.e. deciding what sort of school provision is needed in the area), not just with individual schools?

My main issue with this policy is that it seems like the Conservatives are washing their hands of the responsibility of offering decent schools. They are just saying "over to you then" instead. What happens to kids in areas where the state-run schools are rubbish and the local parents don't have the time etc to start a new school?

Their whole education policy is ridiculous. On the one hand they want to promote the ability for parents to charge, but on the other they want to regulate schools by putting kids in rows and reciting kings and queens of england until it sinks in, thus taking education back to the '50s.

Strikes me that the Tories have no clue what goes on outside of public schools and this new plan will do nothing but create elitism with the state school sector.

Blu, my experience of US charter schools is that they are required to have the same admissions policies as other state schools (unlike JFS here for example.) I therefore don't share your concerns about creating more state schools with closed admissions guidelines.

This policy seems to be an extension and expansion of the existing academy system.

How much of the money that will initially fund these schools could go towards improving existing schools? E.g. Higher teacher/pupil ratios.

Why restrict freedom of choice regarding children's education to those who can afford to pay for private schools?