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

[JustineMumsnet]

The Tories are saying in their manifesto that they plan to develop schools under the Swedish "free schools" and the US "charter school" models: small, autonomous schools run and set up by parents, teachers, universities, faith groups and voluntary groups.

What do you reckon? Could you find the time/energy to start a school? Would you rather attend a school run by a small autonomous group or by central government?

(Am due on BBC news 24 to discuss so your thoughts would be much appreciated)
Txs

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

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 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.

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 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"

lol!

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.

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'.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

jobhuntersrus

It only takes a handful very motivated parents/teachers to start on the road to setting up a new school, given the right support from government. Most of the new schools won't be set up by parents alone, but federations consisting of dedicated new school charities and experts with real experience.

I fully expect the parents who get involved with the actual mechanics of setting up new schools to be the usual pushy middle class types.

However, hundreds of other parents, including those traditionally left behind in the education system, will benefit.

This is both through the pupil premium if they decide to send their children to the new school (the school gets more money for taking poorer pupils) and by forcing the existing schools to improve if they want to retain pupils.

Genuine choice in education is a fantastic way of achieving social mobility.

lily

Yes there is a difference - having it as a policy is a lot more honest.

More investment in existing schools will give parents better choice and students a better education. Its what every child deserves. Simple.

Tory Education policy is a joke, but of course it wont affect Tories who send their kids to fee paying schools will it?

Those who think this would improve choice for parents need to WAKE UP!!!

I am meaning mainstream schools only.

The most efficient way to operate a centralised education system is to standardize everything, which means there is one offering for everyone with little to no room for variation. The is the root problem behind most of the issues with our education. Our children have diverse needs.

Those of you who say "just put the money into the existing schools" you are missing the point that we are seeking diversity in curriculum and methodolody, the one element glaringly absent in the current system. This is the most efficient means to get such diversity in the state system.

The free school model allows groups of parents, teachers, or interested parties to organise educational alternatives without having to be exclusive or selective by requiring tuition fees. There will be organisations to help interested groups with the application process. We all seem to spend a lot of time already finding the best education option for our children and scheming on how to get them there. I don't see this as much more work.

Futhermore, it allows those of us who are considering opting out of the state system completely to remain in the state system and thus promote more social equality. It also brings to light an often overlooked false economy in that parents who send their kids private are subsidising the state system without requiring any of its services.

This is a move toward solving the problems of schools. Just because the transition path from one system to another appears messy doesn't mean you stick with the mess you have.

"More investment in existing schools will give parents better choice" How?