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 we not just have a department of education and keep the same people in charge all the time? mainly ex headteachers and people who have actually worked in education.

rather than some ex etonian who could possibly not have any experience of normal working class life in this country

I love it, I thought it was a Frank Field idea.. how nice the Tories are takng advice from Labour!

I think this is such a great idea. Home edders seem to do a fabulous job. How much more marvellous if they could get together and pool resources.

I thought this was a stupid idea to start with, for all the 'leave it to the people who actually know how to ie the teachers' and 'it will only help a tiny minority' ideas that have been mentioned below.
But the more I hear about the people who actually want to do it, there more I think it's a great idea.
Most of them seem to be teachers, many of them (eg that Bradford guy) seem to be based in inner cities where the schools are crap.

I also wouldn't be surprised if it worked for us - we currently have no choice whatsoever and the local comp is not crap by any means but it doesn't cater for academic children (no triple science, no languages other than Spanish, no school library). We are in commuting distance of our nearest city but our children fall outside the catchment of all the good comps. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were enough keen parents in our position to set up a consortium and start their own small school with an academic curriculum.

Have posted this on the Tory Party Manifesto thread - But as no-one seems to have linked to any parent run school examples on this thread - I thought it might be of interest.

This article about Toby Young's plans to open a school in West London. here.

Also the whole parents running schools idea was originally a Labour idea and possibly a LibDem policy too!

scarletlilybug

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

Parents know which are the "good" schools and which are the "bad" and if offered a place in a "bad" school they dont feel they have a choice.

I teach at a state secondary and with more investment we could cut class sizes (currently 31+ in KS3) we could take students on trips (currently shelved due to lack of funds for cover staff), and get better equipment (I have one computer in my classroom).

IME most of our parents do not want to set up and run the school, they just want to know that their children are in a school that provides them with what they need for a good education, more investment into current schools would help provide this, thus giving parents more "good" schools to choose from.

Labour are proposing that oustanding schools partner failing schools and share good practice. Makes more sense to me than parents, charities and community groups volunteering to set up and run schools.

The Tories reliance on "community" also worries me.. anyone remember "care in the community?"

outstanding

I quite like the idea.

The issue the Tories should be addressing is funding. Schools in this country are chronically underfunded to the point where they cannot do their job properly. Allowing interest groups to set up new schools is not going to address this problem in the slightest. They will start out with starry eyes and high hopes, but a couple of years down the line when they are having to make tough decisions every single day about how to spend their budget in order to provide the best possible outcome for their pupils, the reality will sink in - the problems with education in this country are for the most part NOT ideological - they are economic.
And depending on what part of the country you live in there is structural inequality built into the funding. I am governor of a large primary school in Devon. We get almost £350 per year per pupil less than the national average. That means that we are running our school on about £150,000 LESS per year than the national average - enough to pay the wages of three teachers or 10 teaching assistants. Is that fair?
Those of you who talk about bad schools should start thinking about the REASONS why your local schools are bad rather than rushing to set up alternatives which will suffer from exactly the same problems - low funding and a challenging intake. How are you going to solve those problems? By setting up quasi grammar schools that effectively exclude the children who most need to be able to access a good-quality education? Do you REALLY think you can run a school more efficiently than the people who are professionally qualified to do so?
I am very sceptical.

"Those of you who talk about bad schools should start thinking about the REASONS why your local schools are bad"

don't be so patronising TheFirstLady - of course people are thinking about that.
Of course it's true that many schools are underfunded and struggling because of that, but denying that there are ideological issues here too is just simplistic. There are schools which could have twice the budget and children would still struggle to learn in them.

A bad idea...it's hard enough getting a playgroup off the ground.

I would worry that the money would follow the children of these enthusiasts leaving poor, unsupported children in underfunded, half empty schools.

The schools round us are great; our dds are at the least popular one (popular opinion thinks the children are rough and local middle-class parents aren't intelligent enough to realise that sats results just reflect intake) but our children are being brilliantly educated there.
So, why does any government want to carry on fiddling with education?

It's strange that Sweden and Denmark give parents these freedoms to set up schools when (I think in Denmark) the council gives you your childminder e.g. you can't choose your childminder.

can we not just have a department of education and keep the same people in charge all the time? mainly ex headteachers and people who have actually worked in education.

That is an excellent idea and the same with the department of Health, providing we all agree with their policies of course.

This really is then, parental choice.
I mean, if parents voted with their feet and set up a school, why not?

Every private school and many Religious ones were set up by parents. They hire teachers and business people to run them.
The main thing would be for schools to be freed from central government targets and LEA bureaucracy where so much money is wasted.

I'd rather have parents and teachers (who are also parents) set up school or take over the running of existing schools than have them sold off to private companies who have no stake or interest in the local children.

TFL How does the funding work? And why is there such regional inequality? I recall some stats in the Evening standard which gave per child primary funding in East London as more than £6000 pa. At the time (4/5 years ago, I think) that amount could almost meet private primary school fees in SW London. I assumed it was the concentrated level of deprivation which lead higher funding - but with all the manifesto talk of 'pupil premiums' I'm a bit confused now.

I share Blu's views here. This kind of system could polarise society even further. My fear would be middle class, precious parents and those holding extreme views. Both types of parent would prefer to separate their children from the mainstream, which is both unhealthy and unfair on the child.

So is lumping everyone into one set of 'mainstream' standards, Sophia . . .

I see this as a way to get both diversity in educational offering while allowing dc to stay in mainstream.

In my dream world, ALL schools are free schools, with charities committed to setting them up in areas where parents don't give a flip.

Nothing I've seen in the current Labour education policy suggests to me that Balls, Rose and Croaker have a clue about child development, and much I've seen suggests the opposite.

So I'm supposed to just give up my own responsibility for my dc's education to people whom I don't believe know what they are doing? No thank you.

The complicating issue is that many of us have different ideas about what proper education is, and there is plenty of research evidence that will support a variety of conflicting views.

So instead of saying "we're going to choose one way and everyone who doesn't like it can either homeschool or cough up an independent tuition," the current Labour plan, I prefer the Tory proposal which allows me to work with others to develop the type of education that I find suitable for my dc, and allows you to do the same for yours. The second option is actually way more egalitarian than the first.

Jackstarbright - have a look at the f40 website here for an explanation. Basically, funding is allocated by government to local authorities based on a very crude calculation of need. Local authorities with a high level of urban deprivation are relatively well-funded, however rural local authorities are relatively disadvantaged as rural deprivation for some reason is not as visible - although just as real. Devon, a county with a very low-wage economy is one of those very badly served by the current funding formula. The f40 group is made up of the forty lowest-funded local authorities who argue that this formula is unfair and that the government needs a better and fairer way of allocating funds. There is a review going on at the moment, but who knows what will happen.

My gut reaction is that I hate it.

It feels like an abdication of responsibility by the government (we could invest in everyone getting a decent schooling, but prefer to write off those in failing schools and blame their parents for not getting together to establish a shiny new school for their children).

It feels frightingly short term - I might be everso interested in setting up a primary school while my DCs are primary age, but I guarentee I won't be by the time they are secondary age.

It feels like a circumvention of any local governement powerbases - fragment things, offer the illusion of choice and control over a myriad separate issues locally, but don't think big, don't think about connections between things, don't challenge government with any power behind you.

It feels like an open door to (as someone has already said) 'gated' schools where people-not-like-us can't get in. That's not improving things for everyone, that's 'I'm alright Jack' and pull up the drawbridge.

I'm not keen, does it show?

"I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were enough keen parents in our position to set up a consortium and start their own small school with an academic curriculum."

And what would you do with the non-academic children SethStarkaddersMum?

This option is not egalitarian at all. The reality will be that those children with pushy parents will get much further than those children from ordinary or deprived backgrounds. Sorry to sound judgemental, but it will be those same parents who send their kids to after-school tuition every evening and push them into private schools because they think the state systems aren't enough for their precious children. There will be a huge disparity of quality of education in different areas. Children from deprived backgrounds and those families who do not have good English will be marginalised.

The fears you are describing around this policy are actually what is happening now. And yes, I do think, generally speaking, that the current state system is inappropriate for my dc.

Please read the rest of my paragraph TFL - I'll cut and paste it to make it easier for you:
' the local comp is not crap by any means but it doesn't cater for academic children (no triple science, no languages other than Spanish, no school library).'

according to OFSTED this particular school caters very well for a range of SENs and pretty well for the mainstream. So I don't really see a problem with the non-academic children continuing to go there. And I don't believe for a moment that my deciding not to send my kids there, if I am lucky enough to have an option, will magically make that school terrible, do you?

I agree with Zazizoma - these things already are the case.
Anyone seen the Sutton Trust's latest report, reported here, saying that the top comps are even less diverse than grammar schools?
Personally I'd bring back academic selection but since that's not allowed you could at least set up schools which were open to everybody but which focused on providing an education suitable for the brightest children.

SSM - my DD1 actually goes to a local comp very similar to the one you describe. I would not contemplate withdrawing her in order to set up a school suited to the needs of an academic elite, nor do I think I would be doing her any favours by so doing. I do get frustrated by the lack of opportunities that more able students have in some areas of the curriculum, but like other parents with similar issues I try to put pressure on the school to improve provision in those areas. In my opinion, that's the way forward.