Russell Education Trust/Russell Group Universities

"but that's the private sector's temporary good fortune."

I hope you're right. I agree its something that could be reversed through improving existing maintained schools, rather than introducing free schools. It's a big issue in some parts of London, and is a factor in segregating those that can afford it from those that can't. It is also a factor in family breakdown (due to the financial stress) and community breakdown (due to people moving house in droves as an alternative solution).

I think indifferent private schools have something to fear.

That should be entirely irrelevant to the discussion. They're private businesses. The LEA has no obligation to make their lives easier. As you say, unintentionally that has sometimes happened through lack of good quality places, but that's the private sector's temporary good fortune.

"Successful existing schools have nothing to fear from the arrival of a free school."

I think indifferent private schools have something to fear. Some LAs have been inadvertently bolstering the private sector while letting their maintained schools remain below par. It's easy (and cost effective) to say new places aren't needed if existing schools aren't full, but that's disingenuous if a disproportionate number of families are reluctantly scraping together funds to go private because they are worried about quality issues.

"Successful existing schools have nothing to fear from the arrival of a free school."

I agree.

"I am deeply sceptical of the motives of both the schools and the parents involved. Most of them look like projects to build exclusive schools to keep out "the other""

By "most of them" I think you mean the ones you know about because they've been in the press for those reasons. There are many others under the radar because they aren't so controversial.

The fact is that the Free School route is (almost) the only way to create new schools at the moment, so in some cases parents have become involved to make sure that the inevitable influx of free school places are tailored to local need rather than being imposed on them from outside.

I was under the impression that the potential to cause an existing school to close is still very much a possibility

I think the entire free school programme is ideologically driven fuckwittery, and I am deeply sceptical of the motives of both the schools and the parents involved. Most of them look like projects to build exclusive schools to keep out "the other", be that cynical attempts at backdoor selection, religious extremists or the carcrash that is the Montessori lot in Crawley (See their latest unintentional piece of comedy).

However, I don't think that the potential to cause an existing school to close is a good objection. If a free school opens and is a disaster, local schools will not be affected. If a free school opens and is a success, why should local children be denied a better education to protect the position of weaker schools that happen to already be open?

The argument that we can't allow good schools to open because it will compromise bad schools is a weak one. And the argument that parents are mugs who will send their children to bad new schools because the schools are shiny and the parents don't know what's good for them is deeply patronising. Successful existing schools have nothing to fear from the arrival of a free school. Less effective schools have much to fear, and so they should. The "what about the children in those schools" argument is also flawed: those children would be better off with their schools in special measures earlier, and it's never good to leave children in bad schools without intervention.

"So the school planning is not looking at what the area needs, rather what the individual parent wants and those that shout loudest get what they want. "

Yes, I agree, but I would say that has been true of maintained schools too in some areas. The people who have been shouting the loudest for many years (and who have strongly embedded representation on many LA committees) have been the established churches, hence the massive expansion of the faith school sector under the last Government.

That might seem counter-intuitive to those of you in Brentwood, because from your perspective the free school programme has allowed a new faith school to be created, which you didn't necessarily want. However, from my local perspective the opposite is true ... the free school programme is allowing more high quality mainstream comprehensive school places to be created.

"One thing that always comes across when people are pro free schools is ..."

I wouldn't describe myself as pro free schools. And I wouldn't describe RET as pro free schools. Free schools are the (almost) only way to create new schools at the moment. There are lots of people complaining about that, and it may or may not change in the next parliament. However, there are others who are simply working with the current legislation to create schools that are wanted (and often needed) by their communities.

It's worth pointing out that the balance between want and need is one of the things that has evolved within the lifetime of the free school programme. At first groups just had to show that they were providing something different to what was on offer in local schools, and the focus seemed to be on making sure there was a free school in every area (to counter the "it's just a London thing" accusation). Now the emphasis is much more on need, although the definition of need does explicitly include quality as well as quantity of places (see here).

I agree with you that there will be (and has already been) some failures, and that is desperately sad. The recent NAO report on free schools concludes that the policy has allowed school places to be created more quickly and cheaply than previous policies, but reserves judgement on quality because that is something that will take time to measure.

I think it's also worth recognising that some LAs have been failing their local communities on quality for years. Whether the academy/free school programme is the best solution to that is obviously debatable. Everyone will have a different opinion based on their local experience and political perspective.

Wriggling - maybe the RET schools will, but overall the pushing through of the free schools will be damaging to education in general and Gove will be to blame for that. I don't think it will be 'interesting' to look back on the unsuccessful schools, I think that will be saddening that an ideology was allowed to be pushed through to the exclusion of everything else.
One thing that always comes across when people are pro free schools is they only seem interested in their school and not education in general. So the school planning is not looking at what the area needs, rather what the individual parent wants and those that shout loudest get what they want.
Wiggling - your situation may be different if a new school is meeting the needs of the local community.

Yes, there are still vulnerable school's.

If you look on "about us" on Educating Brentwood there is info about its members. It's definitely a group.

I was under the impression that the potential to cause an existing school to close is still very much a possibility but its still early days.

"These new schools are going to be responsible for the education of 100's of children so getting it right and critics asking the questions is very important. "

Yes, I'd agree with you on that. The Free School policy was introduced quickly, and has evolved quickly, with lots of controversy along the way. It'll be interesting to look back on its legacy in a few years time. However, it will inevitably create some successful schools, and I think the RET schools will count amongst those.

I'm not sure that unjustified accusations were made in this case. The stakes were high in that this school could have potentially caused an existing school to close. No-one would choose that for their child. The moment you stop answering questions you make yourself look as if you have something to hide. Such is the divisive nature of opening a free school in Brentwood. What I've heard so far certainly isn't' "all good"! People will make their choices and yes, the full picture is yet to be realised.

I also think some critics are overly aggressive, and too inclined towards making unjustified accusations. Maybe on mumsnet but not on the educating brentwood site where the questions asked were justified. Whether the lack of information was the fault of RET or the government, mistakes were made and the questions were justified.

These new schools are going to be responsible for the education of 100's of children so getting it right and critics asking the questions is very important. The fact that RET have improved their transparency says they know they got it wrong in brentwood.
I still think it was the wrong decision to open Becket Keys in Brentwood and think in the long time it will be damaging to the area, regardless of whether the Becket Keys actually does well or not.

Greater transparency was definitely needed especially after their rather dubious choice of head teacher. I'm very interested to see how the school does over the next few years but what I've heard so far is all good, although the hormones haven't kicked in properly yet (only 7's and 8's) and we'll only really know once they've had a few years of gcse's.

"As I understand it Educating Brentwood is a group rather than one "author""
Possibly. The blog seemed to be written by a single author, but there may have been a wider group.

"I think it's entirely appropriate to ask questions where the spending of public money is concerned"
Yes, as I said earlier, I think reasonable answers should be expected to reasonable questions. However, I also think some critics are overly aggressive, and too inclined towards making unjustified accusations. That's counter-productive because they end up sending people into bunkers.

As I understand it Educating Brentwood is a group rather than one "author". I think it's entirely appropriate to ask questions where the spending of public money is concerned though and disappointing to see RET withdraw from the debate at the time. Anyway, if they have now conceded that greater transparency is required than that's a good thing.

"information was not very forthcoming from RET during the set up of Becket Keys"

That's clearly a theme of the Educating Brentwood blog ... the author poses lots of questions. At the time there weren't necessarily answers in the public domain, and he found that frustrating. I think the situation has evolved since then though. As I said before, some of RET's more recent schools have a lot more information on their websites, and our group certainly work hard to answer people's questions.

I thought that was the case with Becket Keys too Wren2020, but couldn't remember whether I'd remembered the details correctly.

If i remember rightly, information was not very forthcoming from RET during the set up of Becket Keys.

"When Becket Keys was set up this was not the case."

Yes, I know the policy has evolved with time, partly due to public criticism and scrutiny.

"Incidentally, do you work for RET?"
No, as I said earlier, I'm a parent who is working to set up a new school in another area, which is also sponsored by RET, so I work with them rather than for them.

When Becket Keys was set up this was not the case. You might want to have a look at Educating Brentwood's site. It documents the process as it happened. I appreciate some policies have been improved since then. Incidentally, do you work for RET?

"Hmmm. I'm sure that freeschools do have preferential funding for the first 2 years on top of the start up costs..."

Why are you sure? There is some information about free school funding here.

"also that they are funded to pan regardless of whether full."

No, they're not. The start-up grant does cover some of the disproportionate costs associated with needing a Head, caretaker, etc (as it would for a new maintained school). However, the funding for running costs are per-pupil.

When you submit a free-school proposal to the DfE you need a detailed financial plan that includes a sensitivity analysis to a 20% shortfall in pupils compared to the PAN. (See section G of this doc).

My point on the funding is directly related to the opening of schools in areas that don't really need them.

I'm not really against free schools except that Gove seems to be putting his eggs all in one basket so areas that need new schools but don't have the parental support aren't getting new schools and areas like Brentwood that didn't need a school got one. It seems a silly policy.
I've got no opposition against opening a free school in a area that needs a new school, with the support of an organisation that knows what it is doing. RET does seem to be a sound educational organisation even if I don't agree with everything they did and have some concerns over transparency. I wouldn't worry about my DC going to Becket keys (although I don't agree with faith schools so that's never going to happen, but that's a whole different issue).

However, in Brentwood they closed one school which cost a considerable amount of money as you have to keep the staffing levels up to provide a suitable education and you do get left with more senior staff at the end which means it does cost more. I imagine when you start a school up, you have the same problems. Plus in Brentwood there is concern that due to the opening of Becket keys, another school's pupil number may drop so low that they end up closing - which is disruptive to the students in the school and costly. So, yes when the school is up and running with full numbers it will get the same funding but the whole process of closing, then opening another school has been very costly to the area - money which could have been spent in the other schools in the area.

My real complaint is with Gove as he seems obsessed at pushing ahead his agenda of free schools without really justifying in some cases.

Hmmm. I'm sure that freeschools do have preferential funding for the first 2 years on top of the start up costs, also that they are funded to pan regardless of whether full. Which Becket Keys wasn't in its first year. A grossly unfair system. And actually the fact that the school was not needed due to surplus places in the area is the main issue here. The issue of the head teacher probably teaching more is incredibly troubling as he has no experience of teaching secondary pupils. I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole, like many others locally.

"Otherwise you're not comparing like with like .... It would still be useful to see an equivalent figure for just Year 7/8, since that's all Becket Keys has at the moment."

Something else worth considering. It's probable that Becket Keys has a disproportionate number of senior staff per pupil. For example, in an established school the costs of employing a Headteacher would normally be spread over the funding for 1000+ pupils. However, when there is only a Y7 and Y8, like at Becket Keys, the Headteacher is relatively more expensive. Nevertheless, the Headteacher probably spends more time actually teaching than in the average 1000+ pupil school.

Similarly, for assistant heads, subject leaders etc.

The point I'm making is that structurally a new school is quite different to an established school (whether its a free school or not), so is it valid to compare it with the average PTR figure?