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

can someone tell me about the funding?

how would these schools be funded and paid for. it's not rhetorical i really don't know. This i feel is intrinsic to the notion of choice as discussed here.

no no no!

in our area they are changing from 3 tier to 2 tier schooling. a group of parents in our neighbouring town have attempted to apply to set up their own school. the reasons for this are basically to segregate their kids from kids from the other towns in the school pyramid. it's all got terribly nasty, and even slightly racist. the whole thing is an utter shambles.

How would these schools select their pupils? Will it be a catchment thing? Or exam based?

If i send my child to one, will i need to offer something to the school? How does the parent/teacher get paid? what about class sizes? - are they limited like they are now? Or could there be 40 in one class?

I'm not a blanket "Tories are evil scum" person, unlike some on here, but this is really one of their more crackers ideas.

And I am, in theory, a supporter of having an alternative to the state system which doesn't depend on willingness to believe in imaginary friends or the thickness of Daddy's wallet. But I just don't see how this will work in practice. I agree with those who say it sounds like a cop-out.

I can just see a group of pre-school parents getting motivated enough to come together and convert a disused factory into a primary school.

There's nothing I like better, personally, than spending my weekends pouring concrete, bricklaying, climbing on unsafe roofs and ripping out blue asbestos, just so that my kids can have a half-decent education.

Extract from the manifesto:

" [We will] Create a new generation of independently run state schools. We will make it much easier for educational charities, groups of parents and teachers, cooperatives and others to start new Academies (independent, non-selective state schools). We will move to a national per pupil funding system, so that new schools get paid if they attract pupils, with extra funding for the poorest pupils (a pupil premium).
A Conservative government will give every child the kind of education that is currently available only to the well-off: safe classrooms, talented and specialist teachers, access to the best curriculum and exams, and smaller schools with smaller classes and teachers who know the children?s names."

So presumably these schools would get paid per pupil, with extra money attached to pupils from the poorest areas. As for how staff get paid, I assume they would beemployed directly by the school rather than by the LEA.

Also says schools will be non-selective , with smaller schools and smaller classes.

Here.

Oh please - that whole 'parents who send their kids private are selflessly subsidising the state' line is such a pile of bull.

The fact is that if I'm paying for my dc's schooling the state is not, and their would-be state class is just a little bit smaller or an opening is available to another student. It's hard to refute the logic.

so the govt would pay for child places - does this money (per child) then pay for resources like books pens etc?

the school has to find enough money to cover bills insurances, teachers and money to cover the building ( and a sinking fund presumably)

which leads me to think that these smaller schools will charge the parents to cover costs.

this means the more affluent working class and the lower middles, get their own version of a private system no?

"A Conservative government will give every child the kind of education that is currently available only to the well-off: safe classrooms, talented and specialist teachers, access to the best curriculum and exams, and smaller schools with smaller classes and teachers who know the children?s names."

Surely a government should be ensuring that every classroom is safe?

What is this "best" curriculum?And why do we not follow that at the moment?

My DCs teachers know their names ...

And if they are offering per pupil funding, how can they guarantee smaller class sizes if more pupils = more money?

What is there to stop the schools "selecting" children from the poorest areas in order to get more money?

What happens if, as a result of these independent schools, the state schools have failing class numbers? Will they then be moved to the independent school? or moved to another local school bumping up the pupil numbers there?

zazizoma - that's just an unasked-for side-effect, though. I think what people find annoying is the way it is touted as some kind of selfless act, to make an act of pure self-interest sound altruistic.

A different part of their manifesto says they are opening smaller schools with top class teachers. Is that as well as the independent ones?

To smallwhitecat - I think most people on this thread are talking about 'mainstream' schools. I totally take your point that setting up unique schools to educate children with very specific medical and psychological needs is necessary.

But if there is a problem with bullying from 'undesirables' at a aminstream school, and the teachers are doing nothing about it, then I still think it is better to organise the parents and pressurise those in authority to tackle the problem, rather than run off to a gated community and set up a separate school, desperately hoping that once your good work is done you manage to keep those self-same 'undesirables' out!

In answer to the original question, I think its great idea. There is a whole tranche of volunteers in our communities that the current government do their best to ignore. I've been a foster carer and a homestart volunteer, am a full time mother, and trained as a teacher originally. I'd love to if my DC could go to a fairly small school. I'd be up for starting a school with some other parents, totally.

mumofmonsters

That's the great thing about having real choice. If class sizes are too big, then parents won't send their children to that school.

If they select more poor pupils, then the pupil premium is working exactly as intended. More poor pupils will get a better chance in life. It will do more for social mobility than wasting billions at new PFI buildings.

The "best" exams (I guess) refer to things like International Baccalaureate, etc. At the moment state schools are not allowed to offer exams other than GCSEs and A-Levels.

Yes, if the existing schools are not up to scratch, then parents will not want to send their children there. They will be forced to improve otherwise they will lose their funding as pupils move away. If they don't improve, then they probably won't close, because the premises will already be adapted for use as a school - but they will get taken over by a new school with new management.

PDF on how to set up a school

At the end it says
? The application is different now from the way it may be in the future. If you are applying now you need to be a parent promoter and become either a voluntary controlled school (a local authority school) or apply to be an academy, or else make an application through/with an existing academy operator. If you want capital funding from the Government, you must first prove to the local authority that there is a shortage of places.
? The Conservatives, and to a considerable extent the Liberal Democrats, have indicated that they would make it easier to set up a school. Sweden and America, where new schools have been set up, are the model for their policies. In those countries to submit an application you need a business plan, the description of the curriculum and ethos of the school, and an indication of parent demand to demonstrate you are competent to set up a school. You would then receive funding on a per pupil basis for both revenue and capital.

custardo - I ran a pre-school for a while. Government money (in the form of pre-school "vouchers") paid for all the running costs - staff salaries, pens, paper, toys, rent, etc. I presume the same principle would apply to free schools.

(Might also add that, in my experience, an awful lot of "free" nursery places rely on volunteers working flat out (unpaid) to set up commitees to run pre-schools. If volunteers can set up and run pre-schools , why not schools? Not that I'd want to do so myself, I hasten to add! A pre-school was more than enough.).

uqd, my intent was to point out a false economy in that the current state system does not cover the education of all children. If the state were to cover the costs of educating all children, then yes, it will cost more money. If we implement a free-school system, then yes, it will cost more money, but it will be a more realistic cost because more kids will stay in the system.

This is an election ploy that isn't going to pan out the way most people think. Most people want their child to go to a good, local state school. They don't want to have to set up a school in order to get a good education for their child and nor should they. I think this opportunity will be left to only a small section of our community to take advantage of whether it be pushy parents or for religious/cultural reasons. It will cause an already vast gap in opportunities for children from differing backgrounds to develop further. Those parents that might have pushed for change in their local school with just give up and start somewhere else. Will these schools have to fulfil the same requirements as state schools? In this I mean the NC and all the other useless initiatives that get handed down on an almost daily basis? If so, then not much will change and the people setting up these new schools will become disillusioned very quickly. If not, then this ties the hands of the remaining schools trying to give a suitable education to the children that are left.

The people who need to be in charge of schools, making decisions about what works in education are the people with the professional knowledge. The teachers. Not politicians or quangos or the media who jump on every bandwagon. An interview on the BBC recently with a head teacher from a school in Finland, who have the most successful schools in the world, said one of the most important reasons for their success was that teacher were allowed to lead the way. They were trusted to do their jobs without billions of pounds of interference.

As for those with SN children, I can fully appreciate that setting up a new school would be very tempting but unless the funding structure for SN changes there won't be much improvement. Obviously, a child would be in a more supportive environment which in itself would be a great leap forward for many. There would not necessarily be more money for concrete educational support which is often what people have to fight for.

Agree this is going to backfire. The Tory way of "take control of something yourself and have responsibility for it" can seem far too much like "sort it out yourself, we're not doing it for you."

As it says in the Grauniad today:

"much Cameroonianism is predicated on the proposition that we ? the big society ? want to spend our time running football clubs, our parks, our schools and post offices. Much polling by Ipsos-Mori, notably by Ben Page, has been expended to show that this is not the case."

Oh good grief no!! Where would the accountability lie?

I agree, it's the Tories washing their hands of the education system.

To smallwhitecat - I still believe in the fix rather than the slate wipe.

Surely it would then be better to introduce laws that did give parents more leverage within the system, and implement the adverse consequences you mention, rather than have to amass a huge amount of effort and resources to set up an entirely separate school?

Smallwhitecat I fully understand your point and there are many schools filled with people I don't think should be in charge of children. However, many of the problems occur because of rules set out by the government. Not the schools themselves. There are league tables and targets which go against any common sense and in some cases safety and security for children. If these new schools have to follow these also then nothing will change. If they don't, then why can't all schools have this freedom?

slug

Education is firmly entrenched in law as a parental duty - the state is responsible for promoting education and for providing state education for those who want it.

Parents are legally responsible for ensuring their child receives an education suitable to their age, ability and aptitude, and any SEN, at school or otherwise.

Why is there any confusion about the accountability? There would be no change in law and the alterations to the system would make it possible for parents to meet their duty to educate their child without having to default to home/private education if current state provision does not meet their needs.

I don't agree with the posters that suggest this is the Torys abdicating their responsibility for education. The government responsibility is the setting up the system with regulations, guidelines and revenue flows to allow education to happen. Labour takes on way more to the detriment of all, hence the nanny state we are in and which some of you seem to have become accustomed.