Please explain free schools and academies

[lisad123]

These are clearly new type schools. What are they and do they have a different way of getting their children in? Are they allowed to refuse certain children?
I have googled but too much info to trawl though to get good grasp

Academies have been around for a while at Secondary level. A primary school academy will be an LA-controlled school that has converted to this status. It may have an external sponsor but most do not. They are funded directly by the government instead of through the LA and are free from direct control by the LA. They have a bit more freedom than LA-controlled schools - they can set their own admission criteria and they are free to pay their teachers more or less than the rates used in state schools, for example. Because they take responsibility for matters handled by the LA for other schools they receive some funding that would previously have gone to the LA.

A free school is essentially the same as an academy but has been set up from scratch rather than converting from an existing state school.

Both types of school are subject to the Admissions Code. As they set their own admission criteria they can decide which groups of children will get priority but there are limits on what they can do in this regard. They cannot refuse certain children.

If you want your child to attend an academy or free school you apply through your LA in the normal way, although different arrangements may apply in the school's first year of operation.

No state school (which both free schools and academies are) can refuse your child if they meet the admissions criteria.

And the admissions criteria is always based largely on distance from school, with some other admissions categories, or a lottery system.

The only time a school can refuse your child, if they meet the admissions criteria, is if they have a statement of special needs. Although in normal circumstances they can't refuse a child with a statement either.

We have DDs schools sorted but keep hearing these banded around and was wondering.
Not sure if these are good things or not

prh47bridge - when you say 'they can decide which groups of children will get priority but there are limits on what they can do in this regard' could they apply, say, religious / worship frequency criteria like faith schools do? If so, would that only be 'mainstream' religions or is there nothing stopping say scientologists or moonies funding and setting up a school?

Sorry when I say funded I realised the point about being centrally funded, but I had understood that anyone can - in theory - set up a group to run a free school. Presumably this group isn't paid a salary by the government (?) - if so they need to in some way be privately funded? Isn't that open to interest-group abuse?

WavingLeaves

Sorry when I say funded I realised the point about being centrally funded, but I had understood that anyone can - in theory - set up a group to run a free school. Presumably this group isn't paid a salary by the government (?) - if so they need to in some way be privately funded? Isn't that open to interest-group abuse?

They get their money from the government. They don't need to be privately funded.

And I really struggle with the idea that 'private' means 'abusive'.

This link may help with understanding a bit about free schools educatingbrentwood.com/

The proposed new CofE secondary school in Brentwood is hugely controversial as a high school has been closed in the town due to there being more school places then children to fill them. Ironically, the new school is taking over the old schools site! However, many parents support the new school so I'm not saying it shouldn't open - but there are many arguments for and against to consider.

A free school does not need any funding until the application from the founders has been approved. At this point they will receive a development grant from the government to help cover the costs they will incur prior to opening.

A free school can only use faith-based admission criteria if it is designated as having a religious character. Even if it is designated it can only admit 50% of its children on the basis of faith. If it is not designated a school can still have a faith ethos but it cannot use faith-based admission criteria, nor can it give preference to those of the same faith as the school when appointing staff.

There is no specific requirement for a faith school to follow a mainstream religion. However, there are a set of conditions that faith schools must meet regardless of whether or not the school will be designated. Some non-mainstream religions would be unable to meet those conditions.

"And I really struggle with the idea that 'private' means 'abusive'."

I struggle with the idea that the state funds schools which are used by special interest groups (such as religions) to advance their own interests by using discriminatory admissions policies, even if they are only allowed to do this for 50% of their intake.

The 'privately funded' aspect I mentioned was because I was questioning whether the 'groups' who set up free schools are also paid by the government for their work, or whether their time is privately funded (and thus likely to be determined by the 'group's' rather than the public interest). Presumably setting up a school takes a fair amount of time and effort, and you would have to look closely at the motives of those who want to do it.

Being a school governor also takes a fair amount of time and effort. Governors are unpaid. Do you want to look closely at their motives too?

The issue of whether or not faith schools (including existing faith schools) should be allowed to give priority using faith-based criteria is an emotive one. I understand the point of view of those who feel that state funded schools should not be allowed to give priority in this way. Equally, I understand the point of view of those who set up, say, a Hindu school who wish to prioritise Hindu children.

prh47 - I take your point about school governers, but I think there's a difference between being one person on a board of governers and being a cohesive interest group which is allowed to set the agenda for an entire state-funded school.

Of course some groups might have the best of public-minded intentions, but I don't think it's unreasonable to scrutinise their motives to make sure that everyone in the catchment is reasonably served by the school.

With regard to a Hindu school prioritising Hindu children I would say that that is only reasonable if it is entirely self-funded.

Unless of course the catchment area can also offer a good choice of state schools for children of every other religion and none, which is never going to happen.

WavingLeaves

I struggle with the idea that the state funds schools which are used by special interest groups (such as religions) to advance their own interests by using discriminatory admissions policies, even if they are only allowed to do this for 50% of their intake.

Whose money do you think that is? The state's? You think they earned it? Taxpayers earned it.

The 'privately funded' aspect I mentioned was because I was questioning whether the 'groups' who set up free schools are also paid by the government for their work, or whether their time is privately funded (and thus likely to be determined by the 'group's' rather than the public interest). Presumably setting up a school takes a fair amount of time and effort, and you would have to look closely at the motives of those who want to do it.

They do it out of concern and love for their children. If the state education system was great, nobody would bother.

The state is not impartial and emotion free and interested merely in the welfare of the citizenry. It is just as partial and just as driven by prejudice and bias.

Flatpackhamster - ok, substitute 'state' for 'taxpayers' in my sentence if you like, it still works.

Oh and as for 'concern and love' , if that is only confined to children of a particular religion - THEIR religion - it's hardly noble is it?

Btw I don't have a problem with privately funded schools operating discriminatory admissions policies, as long as they are just that, privately funded.

The reason that Blair and Lord Adonis started the Academies - independent state schools - is because so many schools (not by any means all) were dumbed down, almost out of control, didn't teach languages (except superficially), science as 3 subjects, etc.etc. Lord Adonis was bought up in a children's home and went from there to an excellent State Boarding School and from there to Oxford. In one of his government jobs he visited secondary schools frequently and was deeply shocked by the implications of so many doors being closed to less advantaged children. He wanted children to have the opportunities he had had.

I think that the gov. is more cautious about letting wacky sects into the mix but I'm not up to date.