'Zealot' Michael Gove is accused of 'lunacy' in £400m free school row...how is this affecting your children's education?

[MillyDLA]

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/classroom-controversy-zealot-michael-gove-accused-of-lunacy-in-free-schools-budget-row-9350075.html

I would like some reactions and thoughts to this. As a teacher in an oversubscribed school, surrounded by other over subscribed schools money would have been better spent creating more places where they are needed in the state sector.

"In Kidderminster this week ..."

This isn't one I know anything about, and have only spent a couple of minutes doing a Google search, so feel free to contradict me, but it does appear to be an area where there are predicted shortages of places.

Of course whether converting a private school to a free school is the best way to deal with that is another matter (not many conversions have been approved recently afaik), but given the financial problems the DfE are having over acquiring sites for new schools they presumably see it as a cost effective way of creating places.

'Choice' (of one) has never existed and even meaningful 'preference' (from a few) will remain illusory unless there is oversupply in the system (which I doubt we can afford right now, and which is short-term unachievable in many places until the demographic problem of excess number is solved).

Free schools clearly give more options, some catering to specific groups (eg a disproportionate number of first wave being Hindu faith schools). The question is whether the free school model can also cope with the demographic challenge. In London and other areas of dense population it might (and that is where need is most acute). Elsewhere, it's not so clear (and the point about interface with free transport policy is well made).

" 'Choice' (of one) has never existed and even meaningful 'preference' (from a few) will remain illusory unless there is oversupply in the system "

Yes, I agree Meditrina, as per this other thread.

We are in an area where several fee paying schools are converting or have done so - that doesn't actually increase places ?!? Yet we are short of places. This year the existing free schools a few miles away are undersubscribed ... All not very joined up

Well Gove wants all children to have an education comparable to that offered by private schools.

And the best and quickest way of doing this?

Divert funds from states schools leaving them to literally fall apart

label them as failing, change all progress measurement criteria, alienate teachers and play around with the NC every five minutes so that no consistent teaching plans can be established.

Prevent expansion (through lack of funds) so there are insufficient places to meet demand

As demand overtakes supply (which it already does in many areas) parents will have no option but to either HE (hard to do for those in FTW) or to enrol in a Free School. This is not choice, this is taking whatever we can get.

Continue to deplete the supply of state school places and increase supply of Free School Places.

Start to close any remaining state schools because "they're under performing" and move to full privatisation of Free Schools.

icecreamsoup free schools are ... they're the only to create new school places in areas where existing schools have already expanded to the max

I’m in the SW Herts catchment and all schools were approached in 2013 to see if they would be prepared to expand to cater for a confirmed shortfall from 2014 onwards. Three agreed. The others refused and could not be made to do so as they are Academies, regardless whether they were able to expand or not. Since then one of the three that initially agreed has dropped out. This suggests the ability to expand was there, they simply decided against it.

A Free School has been proposed (to open 2016) and would only go ahead if a sufficient level of interest was shown. When interest is shown there is no obligation to then take up a place once it has been established. This could mean that, provided those wishing to open up the Free School had enough friends and family in the area, the school could "in theory" go ahead, subject to land/planning etc. The process has nothing to do with whether existing schools in the area have already expanded to the max.

I will also add that I am in an area where schools are oversubscribed yet the one existing Free School in the area is under subscribed. The school is housed in an office block which is a temporary location. It is to be relocated at some point within the next year or so but no one knows where to. Given that its priority catchment suggests that it could be relocated anywhere up to three miles from where it currently resides, resulting in a journey of up to 6 miles for some children who have already been allocated that school as they did not get any of their 4 preferences, and there was no where else to place them. I will also add that the vast majority of the SW Herts Consortium catchment does not even fall into the catchment of the Free School.

I came across this comment on the Local Schools Network blog, which I follow, which puts it well, I thought.

"The Observer story merely confirms that in the context of a limited budget, the decision was made to prioritise the creation of places in Free Schools, including those cases where the Free School was justified as “creating choice” ie created a local surplus of places, over the creation of places in some areas where there is a shortage.

As this year’s admissions season continues a clearer picture will emerge of where in the country people will end up being told that actually, there will be no place for their child, at the same time as it will be established which of the new Free Schools opening this autumn have vacant places…..

Of which one will be the Whitehall Park School, Islington, – assuming it still opens this autumn as even the proposers now seem to be talking in terms of having only 40 per cent occupancy….

See here:

www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2014/03/when-is-a-more-than-half-empty-school-an-oversubscribed-school-when-it-is-the-whitehall-park-school-islington-this-autumn/

"Continue to deplete the supply of state school places and increase supply of Free School Places"

Free Schools are state schools. Yes, they're academies, but like other types of academy they're still state-funded.

The expansion of Academy Programme is a controversial debate in itself, but it's much wider than just Free Schools.

"yet the one existing Free School in the area is under subscribed. The school is housed in an office block which is a temporary location. It is to be relocated at some point within the next year or so but no one knows where to."^

That'll be why it's under-subscribed then! For 2014, free schools haven't been allowed to open in temporary accommodation unless they have a permanent site secured.

"A Free School has been proposed (to open 2016)"
It's unlikely that the DfE will approve another one for the same area before they've managed to find a permanent site for the first one and filled it up.

icecreamsoup "A Free School has been proposed (to open 2016)"
It's unlikely that the DfE will approve another one for the same area before they've managed to find a permanent site for the first one and filled it up

You might want to let the school backing it know this as they seemed very hopeful at the round of meetings they held at all the local primary schools:

www.croxleygreenschool.org.uk/the-team.html

www.stclementdanes.org.uk/news-events/latest-news/scd-gets-behind-new-croxley-green-secondary-school

I would also add that if the school does not open the shortfall in 2016 for the SW Herts catchment is going to be a major problem.

I'm pretty sure the following will affect whether the school goes ahead rather than whether the other school is filled or not:

A 2013 report stated that "An absolute shortage of places is forecast from 2014/15, increasing to 3 f.e. from 2016/17 and 11 f.e. from 2018/19."

You can call Free Schools what ever you want but as far as I'm concerned they are simply a fast track to privatisation of schools.

icecreamsoup you seem pretty clued up on state schools. Are existing state school allowed to opt out of following the NC too, Can they recruit anyone as a Head, can they recruit the same profile of candidate as teachers etc. and is their funding and method of receipt of that funding the same as for Free Schools? Genuine questions BTW.

I initially thought Free schools were a good idea, when they were setting up in area's where there was a real shortage of spaces. However two free primary schools have opened up in my city, about a mile and a half apart. I don't believe we have a shortage of places here. in fact the council closed down about 3 schools about 5 years ago because we had too many spare places.

The free schools are meant to be open to everyone, but anyone who is short of money would take one look at the uniform cost of one of our free schools and run a mile (£19 for a Reception child's kilt!!!). As a state school we have to ensure our uniform is reasonably priced, it seems this is yet another area where free schools can do what they like
and subtlety only attract the more middle class families.

What really gets me is in the local press some people keep referring to the new schools as being outstanding. They have only been open since Sep 13 and have not been through OFSTED yet. So on what basis have they proved they are outstanding?

The amount of 'support' way out strips actual applications - people support it in a desperate attempt to get an extra school in the hope that it will relieve the pressure as LEAs can't open new schools. The three local to me all have lots of spaces. The ridiculous uniforms are emperors new clothes in my view... What dies spending a fortune on blazers and daft girls outfits get you?

MumTryingHerBest said "I would also add that if the school does not open the shortfall in 2016 for the SW Herts catchment is going to be a major problem .... An absolute shortage of places is forecast"

In that case, it has much greater chance of being approved.

The existing free school (the one without a permanent site) will fill up because all its places will be needed to help with the bulge. However, the fact that it doesn't yet have a permanent site will be putting pressure on the Education Funding Agency (EFA) to find one, and when vendors sniff desperation they put up land prices. The EFA was criticised by the National Audit Office recently for overpaying on free school sites in those circumstances. That is why they've now (for 2014) introduced the ban on opening new schools in temporary accommodation unless a permanent site is already lined up. A few schools due to open this September have been deferred because of that.

MumTryingHerBest asked: "Are existing state school allowed to opt out of following the NC too, Can they recruit anyone as a Head, can they recruit the same profile of candidate as teachers etc. and is their funding and method of receipt of that funding the same as for Free Schools?"

Mum, yes they can do all that if they convert to academy status. They are then known as Converter Academies (see here for definitions of different academy types).

Free schools are just new academies, and many of them are very mainstream (follow NC, use national pay scales etc).

doodledotmum: "The amount of 'support' way out strips actual applications"

That's because, if they can, people avoid the risk of a new school until they see how it performs. Many free schools find their numbers drift up throughout the opening year as people come along and see the school open. And then they're much more likely to be full or oversubscribed in their second year, provided they're gaining a good word-of-mouth reputation among existing families.

That's not unique to free schools. I've seen other new schools fill up in the same way - people are naturally cautious at first.

ICantFindAFreeNickName said: "anyone who is short of money would take one look at the uniform cost of one of our free schools and run a mile"

Some Voluntary Aided schools are just as bad, as are some convertor and sponsor academies. The DfE published new guidance for all schools last September on making sure that uniforms were reasonably priced.

icecreamsoup

Your point that people will naturally be cautious about any new school, which, by definition, has no track record is surely valid.

However if a new Free School has lots of vacant places, as many have, where then are the children going to school? Their parents have obviously chosen to send them somewhere else.

Anywhere, where a Free School has vacant places, is somewhere where there are vacant school places... a surplus in THAT area has been created by setting up a Free School. And money, which is limited, has been used up on that.

Meanwhile in other areas there are absolute shortages of places, and Local Authorities are NOT allowed to open schools, but ARE allowed to extend existing schools, which is cheaper and more efficient where it is possible BUT they have had funding to do this transferred to the Free School programme which is getting financial preference to create places (including creating places where they are NOT NEEDED)

As I write this I wonder, can this really be true?

Do we only need new schools where there is a shortage of places? Or do we also need new schools where parents are unhappy with the existing schools?

Unfortunately there are some parts of the country where many of the local schools have been failing for years. There are enough places to go round but some parents are forced to send their children to schools they really want to avoid. Allowing new schools in these areas gives parents a choice.

The counter argument is that funds are tight so money should be concentrated on areas where there is currently a shortage of places.

Fundamentally this is what the argument is about. The LibDems have moved from supporting creating new schools where parents are unhappy with existing schools to only supporting them where there is a shortage.

Actually, I suspect this is really a diversionary tactic by the LibDems. Emails were leaked in Friday showing that Clegg was advised that his announcement on free school meals for infants last September was misleading the public and there was a risk school places would have to be cut to fund the policy. Given that the LibDems have repeatedly denied claims Clegg was told the policy could not be funded from unspent maintenance funds as announced and would cost significantly more than he said, these emails were potentially very damaging.

All parties engage in this kind of diversionary tactic, of course. Isn't politics wonderful.

*icecreamsoup "Are existing state school allowed to ...?"

Mum, yes they can do all that if they convert to academy status.*

Is there a valid reason why they have to convert? I don't understand why all state school can't have the same options available to them. Again a genuine question.

I am somewhat confused as to how the approval of a Free School is based on there being no surplus school places in the area, when the application process only requires them to demonstrate a certain level of interest.

If an area has a projected shortfall and a Free School application is approved, land procured and building comences, will it really be prevented from opening if there are still school places available in the area at the time of opening?

Does this not mean that there will be a lot of time and expense wasted in setting up of these schools?

I will also add, although will concede to the fact this might be a unique situation, that the existing Free School I have referred to is schedule to relocate to a permanent site in 2016 (as mentioned on their web site), whereas the new Free School is projected to open in 2016. To meet the deadline for the opening of the new Free School, they would have had to break ground long before the relocation of the existing Free School. Would this not, therefore, result in the new Free School being operational irrespective of whether the existing Free School is full or not. Would the new Free School really be prevented from opening even though large amounts of money had been spent on it?

nlondondad said: "Their parents have obviously chosen to send them somewhere else."

Of course. Those that can afford it may well choose the private sector. As I said here, people are doing that in droves in London, and the sector is expanding as a result of it. (I would prefer to see the private sector naturally diminishing due to competition from high performing state schools).

Those that can't afford it (and can't move) are stuck with the understandably less popular, poorly performing schools that everyone else is avoiding.

Where I live there is a lot of house movement due to school access issues, and its very de-stabilising for the community, which is why I started taking an interest.

Good local schools create strong communities, and are therefore self-reinforcing. Poorly performing schools drive people out.

prh47brige I agree with all of your post. I'd just add that we're now in the run up to the 2015 General Election, and so the Lib Dems will be looking for ways to distance themselves from controversial coalition policies.

icecreamsoup Good local schools create strong communities, and are therefore self-reinforcing. Poorly performing schools drive people out.

Unfortunately, that is not always the case. My nearest school is seeing people take up short term rentals, procuring a place and then moving back out to the family home quite some distance away. Their subsequent children then benefit from sibling places.

One such school offers 19 distances places. In 2013 10 of those places were allocated to people who have since moved out of the area. There could actually be more than 10 through private (word of mouth) rentals etc. and shared family home addresses.

MumTryingHerBest said: "Is there a valid reason why they have to convert?"

Any maintained school can apply to convert, using this process. They don't have to convert, although anecdotally some schools have felt under pressure to do so in order to avoid the Sponsored Academy process, or in order to have certainty over their future funding.

"I am somewhat confused as to how the approval of a Free School is based on there being no surplus school places in the area, when the application process only requires them to demonstrate a certain level of interest."

Because as part of the approval process the DfE looks at the local context. They monitor shortages, and will contact the LA to discuss the impact of a new school.

The demonstration of support is the responsibility of the group behind the proposed school - they need to show that their school will be popular with local families because, for the reasons ooutlined to NLondonDad above, there is no point in creating an unpopular new school, even if new places are needed. (Local Authorities have sometimes made that mistake in the past - their new schools were no more guaranteed to be popular than Free Schools, but their consultation processes didn't need to prove that they would be popular, and sometimes didn't get many responses at all).

"If an area has a projected shortfall and a Free School application is approved, land procured and building comences, will it really be prevented from opening if there are still school places available in the area at the time of opening? Does this not mean that there will be a lot of time and expense wasted in setting up of these schools?"

No, not if they're that far on in the process, with land procured and work commencing. Provided they pass all their pre-opening tests (Governors/Staff appointed, Ofsted inspection passed etc) I'd expect them to be allowed to open (but see answer to final question below).

Schools that have been deferred/cancelled in their pre-opening year generally haven't had enormous amounts spent on them. A lot of the work carried out by free-school trusts is pro-bono (i.e. they are working for free, just like LA school governors), and procurement of equipment doesn't begin until after the site is secured.

"the existing Free School I have referred to is schedule to relocate to a permanent site in 2016 (as mentioned on their web site)"

But has the permanent site been secured? If it is secured, but they just haven't announced the location, then that is ok. If they haven't secured anywhere yet then it is more of a worry. (Although in some cases I expect there are back-up plans that aren't in the public domain).

"Would the new Free School really be prevented from opening ..?"

There are no hard and fast rules - just lots of uncertainty (which is what is so frustrating for free school groups and parents supporting them). If it is politically expedient for the school to open, and it can be justified financially, then it will open, but those are two big "ifs" and there is no sure fire way of knowing in advance, especially as the unwritten rules are changing all the time due to public pressure, inter-departmental pressure etc.

MumTryingHerBest said: "My nearest school is seeing people take up short term rentals, procuring a place and then moving back out to the family home quite some distance away. Their subsequent children then benefit from sibling places."

Yes, that's true too, but there are ways of tackling it, such as:

• Making sure there is a good mix of housing (including good quality family housing and also social housing) near all schools. This is something that the LA can influence to a certain extent through planning regulations.

• Introducing distance caveats on sibling places (some of my local schools have done that).

• Concentrating resources on poorly performing schools to even up standards across the board. To some extent this is already happening (or should be) through Pupil Premium policies, but it has a long way to go, and really needs more incentives for good staff to transfer to poorly performing schools.

• Being ruthless about checking addresses, and allocating places based on permanent addresses rather than temporary ones. My LA has become very ruthless about that. If an applicant has more than one address they will need to prove that the one on the application form is their permanent one.

icecreamsoup thanks for you replies :-) All suggests a very unsteady future for Secondary Schools in SW Herts :-(

If the vast amounts on time, effort & money being spent on free schools, was spent on the existing schools that parents are not happy with, I'm sure most schools could be turned around quite quickly and a better education could be offered to a lot more children.

"If the vast amounts on time, effort & money being spent on free schools, was spent on the existing schools that parents are not happy with, I'm sure most schools could be turned around quite quickly"

Yes, many could, if it was done properly' like in the London/City Challenge Programme.

However...
a) in some cases vast amounts of time, effort and money have been spent on schools and they are still not popular, for a variety of reasons, e.g. they have a flawed sponsor, or a poor Head, or entrenched under-performing staff. That's no reason not to keep trying though.
b) if they improved, they would fill up quickly and, in areas of dense population like London, we would need even more places sooner because fewer families would transfer to the private sector. (Although that last bit is a positive benefit in my view).