'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.

straggle - I agree with you.

nlondondad - yes, it's a mixed picture. Some good, some bad.

teacherwith2kids: "To be a supporter of free schools 'because they are the only option' is terrifically depressing"

To be a supporter of some free schools when they are the only option is pragmatic. For people in areas where new places are wanted and needed, it would have been "terrifically depressing" to just sit back and grumble about the policy, instead of getting on with using it to create a school.

I think its important to highlight the many free schools that don't hit the headlines - the ones that are popular, likely to be successful, and which meet local need. They are the ones that are often forgotten when the anti-free-school hyperbole starts to fly, and it's important that they aren't damaged in the war of words going on around them.

icecreamsoup I can't help feeling that your of the impression that something is better than nothing.

How many of these Free Schools are actually being set up through necessity, rather than wanting, due to insufficient school places or at least the looming prospect thereof?

Whilst the Free Schools in your area may seem like a good option to you, in the area where I live, the existing Free School simply pales in comparison to the existing state schools. If someone asked me what I want, I would tell them that I would like more of the same not something completely different. Luckily, the proposed Free School is being backed by one of the local, relatively high performing, schools (seasoned professionals with an educational background and a successful track record). I'm hoping this could bring about "more of the same".

Whilst there will undoubtedly be some quite strong Free School propositions I can't help feeling that there will be many more that will fail miserably. At the moment Gove is so focused on just getting the Schools into existence, producing a too late to back out senario, that, in my mind, there really isn't enough focus on quality.

icecreamsoup I think it is important to highlight that, whilst it is devastating for many parents to not get any of their school preferences and to be placed into the nearest school that no one else wants, being placed into the nearest Free School that no one else wants will not really present them with a better option.

The high performing Free Schools will be over subscribed and the under performing Free Schools will be a dumping ground. How will the introduction of Free Schools have changed the current situation, other than forcing parents to take a leap into the unknown.

You made a point about the existing Free School in my area not being fully subscribed due to the uncertainty of its permanent location. It is interesting that children are travelling from a distance of up to 9 miles to attend my local state schools yet, two children I know who were allocated the free School have chosen private schools 5 and 8 miles away instead.

You might like to take a look at their admissions policy, if you can find it: www.reachfreeschool.co.uk

MumTryingHerBest: "If someone asked me what I want, I would tell them that I would like more of the same "

Me too, which is why I'm helping to make sure one of my local pipeline free schools provides that, through active involvement. Free Schools don't have to be different and distinctive. If they're fulfilling a need for more places then they can be as mainstream as you like.

I don't deny that different areas are having mixed experiences with the free school policy, but the positive stories need to acknowledged as well as the negative ones that are currently getting most of the airtime.

But its the spending of money on Free Schools were they are NOT needed to provide places that is the problem!

icecreamsoup

"If someone asked me what I want, I would tell them that I would like more of the same "

Me too

As I had nothing to do with the management and/or success of the state school backing the proposed Free School, in what way would I be qualified in setting up a new one to replicate that success?

for me it is not a choice issue, it is a quality issue and there seems to be very little emphasis on quality when it comes to the Free School programme. However, there does seem to be a lot of emphasis on choice, which at the end of the day is still not going to happen as the good schools will continue to be over subscribed and the underachieving schools will be the dumping ground.

The problem I have is, if the proposed Free School does not open in 2016, there will be nowhere else to go but the existing Free School, which I wouldn't touch with a barge pole. As it stand now, I am no better off as a result of the opening of that Free School.

In my mind, the whole Free School initiative is pointless as the same, if not better, results could be achieved with the system already in place, especially if the Free School budget was added to the mix.

icecreamsoup but the positive stories need to acknowledged as well as the negative ones that are currently getting most of the airtime.

Feel free to share any you have. You certainly know more about Free Schools than me, it would be helpful to get a balanced perspective.

But its the spending of money on Free Schools were they are NOT needed to provide places that is the problem

Define "not needed". Do we only need new schools where there is a shortage of space? Or do we also need new schools where parents are unhappy with the existing schools?

Both answers are valid but which you give may depend on your situation.

If you live in an area where there is no shortage of places but a number of schools are failing and have been for some time you may well support the idea of opening a new school. You may think that is preferable to being forced to send your children to a school you really don't want.

On the other hand if you live in an area where there is a real shortage of places you may well think that new schools should only be opened where there is a shortage. And if you are against free schools on principle you are also likely to say that they should only be opened where there is a shortage of places.

"As I had nothing to do with the management and/or success of the state school backing the proposed Free School, in what way would I be qualified in setting up a new one to replicate that success?"

I didn't say that you were, or that you should. However, if they want to then local parents can play a role in setting up new schools, by vociferating what it is that they want, campaigning for it, initiating it, facilitating it, and supporting it. Don't forget that most maintained schools are also supported by Parent Governors and Community Governors, who make a huge contribution to the running of the schools. Yes, parent proposers of free schools do need a lot of additional support, but that is available, if not from the LA (many of which would be very willing to help), then from a multitude of consultants and sponsors (from which they would obviously have to choose wisely).

"there seems to be very little emphasis on quality when it comes to the Free School programme"

I would disagree. That might be your experience with your local free school, and certainly some howlers seem to have slipped through the net, but there is certainly an emphasis on quality in the approval process.

prh47bridge 'Do we only need new schools where there is a shortage of space?'

You're correct that there's a huge contradiction in ideology in the free schools programme. Some schools are just not mainstream and shouldn't be set up in an area of shortage in case they are the only but an extremely unsuitable option.

But we've just come out of a recession and there's a shortage of money - apparently. Housing benefit has been cut, so has child benefit. Niche schools are a luxury - if you want it, you can pay for it. Now the truth is out - these schools are diverting resources from the established schools.

With virtually all the minority interest schools - Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Montessori, Steiner, bilingual, space science, army-run, plugging your child remotely into distance learning pods - I would be furious to be allocated a place at any one of these when all I want is a decent mainstream school run by the local authority.

The next best thing is a converter academy established aeons ago by the LA with the same leadership and governors in place, just praying it won't all go wrong.

Or you could try to influence the system from within like icecreamsoup just to get something resembling what most parents want - a good local school, just like successful ones that have been run for years by local authorities. But you'll probably find that no one really thanks you for it.

Define "not needed". Do we only need new schools where there is a shortage of space? Or do we also need new schools where parents are unhappy with the existing schools?

If money is unlimted, having bioth types of new school is fine.

If budget is limited, then those where there is a shortage of sopace should be the priority, with those where there are enough spaces but parents are unhappy only being funded if money is left over.

It's like household budgeting - if money is short, prioritise the things you NEED: food, untilities, and a roof over your head. When money is less limited, buy not only the things you need, but the things you would like to have.

teacher I agree with all that, and would only add that when places are needed and money is tight, the priority should be for mainstream, comprehensive admissions policies, rather than places that select by faith, gender, academic ability, or anything else.

But then the real agenda behind the free schools programme is to privatise the schools sector and create market opportunities, first by creating a new tier of school providers independent of the local authority. No matter that ostensibly they can't make money out of it because they are meant to be charitable 'trusts': it's become a race for a swathe of profit-seeking providers to get their foot into the market first. And the vast majority have been accepted NOT because there's been a competition, and a consultation, but because they just muscled in and used contacts and influence, or just spent money advertising directly to parents for their 'expressions of interest', some of whom have no idea which group is behind it, or even that the school doesn't yet exist. It's undemocratic, it's nepotistic (certain movers and shakers move from one group to another and often have contacts in banking and/or government), it's secretive, and it's using children as cargo to barter with.

And parents do not have a choice.

In that context I can understand if you view that pragmatically and want to influence the choice of sponsor ahead of having one imposed on your local community. But it's still wrong to turn education into a market when parents - and voters - have not bought into it and to speed that up just before the election so it is irrevocable.

"but the positive stories need to acknowledged as well as the negative ones that are currently getting most of the airtime."

Here are some examples of schools that are meeting the needs of their communities ...

Archer Academy: Very well supported by their LA (Barnet), to the extent that the Assistant Director of Schools was appointed as the Headteacher. Opened with a full cohort in 2013.

Kingston Academy: When the Building Schools for the Future scheme was canned by the Coalition Government, North Kingston's approved project to create a new secondary school was canned with it. However, in a rare example of consensus politics, local councillors and LA officers put their heads together and started coordinating a free school proposal. The LA has a minority stake in the trust, and all the other local state schools have representation in the partnership too.

St. Mary's Hampton: This one serves a community annexed by a railway line, who previously found it difficult to access their two nearest primaries because distances were measured door-to-door rather than as the crow flies, placing them at a disadvantage. The school site, an LA-owned building, was being targeted by a bid from the Maharishi School Trust, but local people got together and put in a rival bid. They were supported by the Diocese of London, and the school is CE, but its admissions policy is completely open in line with the Diocesan policy for new schools.

icecreamsoup Archer Academy certainly seems to be off to a sprint. They have bums on seats and are oversubscribed. Its academic success is looking likely given that it is being targeted by those who have considered it alongside super selectives and other high achieving schools.

However, bit confused as to why you have listed Kingston Academy as it is not up and running yet or did they bring the 2015 opening forward?

As for St. Mary's Hampton, a faith school no less, whilst I agree that it serves the community, there is nothing to suggest that it is doing so successfully.

If you want to highlight each Free School that is serving the community, that would be all of them wouldn't it, otherwise they wouldn't have been permitted to open?

To counter the negative stories, surely you should be presenting the success stories, which in my mind would not be restricted to a successful opening. Given that Free Schools have been in existence since 2011, surely there is an example where the success has been measured and documented in the same way as it is for existing state schools?

Mumtryingherbest I was highlighting some of the needs that were being met by free schools, and the fact that they don't need to be particularly "distinctive" from other local schools. Kingston Academy will serve a local need when it opens in 2015, which is why I listed it.

St. Mary's opened in 2013, so it won't be inspected until next year. Yes, it's a faith school but, as I said, it has an open admissions policy, is fully subscribed, and is more suited to its local community than a Maharishi school would have been. (To put it in context, the LA established a VA school at the same time, which was far more controversial)

New schools have their Ofsted inspections towards the end of their second year of opening. The ratings for the 2011 openers are summarised by the DfE here. Many of the 2012 openers have been inspected now too, but not all of them yet.

Where I live there are several hundred free spaces in one school.
All of the other schools are fit to bursting.
Nobody is opening a Free school where there is demand.
No matter how much the crush for places, people would rather HE than send their kids to the half empty school.

Where a school was closed in the 80's but the population has recovered, why can the LA not open the needed school?

The ratings for the 2011 openers are summarised by the DfE here.

So 25% were "requires improvement" or "inadequate" (6 out of 24 schools mind you so not enough to make any conclusions overall ).

As a separate point does anyone know what % of "old style" state schools are rated "needs improving" or "inadequate"?

Currently it is 21%. That figure has been falling for the last few years. At the time the 2011 openers were inspected the figure for LA-maintained schools was 31%.

See here:

dataview.ofsted.gov.uk

Secondaries:
28% all schools
36% LA maintained
45% sponsor led academies
14% academy converters

Primaries:
20% all schools
20% LA maintained
43% sponsor led academies
10% academy converter

Evidence here that LA maintained primaries consistently outperform academies.

According to a post here so far 50% of the 2012 free school openers have been judged inadequate or requires improvement.

More up to date report on inspections:

www.theguardian.com/education/2014/apr/29/free-schools-ofsted-failure-rate-higher-state

I've found this a really interesting thread, thank you for all the information that has been posted. In principle, I am against the privatization of schools. In reality, I live in an area that is almost completely academies. The Academy providers have taken over failing schools and are setting up new free schools. There is a shortage of spaces, but ironically because a lot of the schools are managed by the same 'sponsor', it means less choice not more.

There is a new free school opening in September (if the funding agreement is signed, and there is no reason why it shouldn't be) I'm considering sending my child to. The school has a great mission, the head teacher seems great, it is NC, will be all qualified teachers, and in theory managed by an 'established' sponsor. But one of the main problems I have at the moment is all the negative press about free schools. I do think that there is potential for the schools to fail because the negative press creates fear and uncertainty in the parents. I'm gutted because I would like to send my child to this new school, but I'm just concerned that the climate is going to doom the school to failure before it has even had a chance to get going. I think that I would just like to be confident that there were free school successes, and that they wouldn't get dragged down by negative press and the inevitable (I hope) change in policy.

All the free schools rated outstanding so far have been set up by existing academy providers that have had other outstanding ratings (Dixons, Tauheedul, ARK) or the Church of England, and could have been set up as sponsored academies or voluntary aided schools working with the local authority.

The inadequate ones, or needing improvement, have been ex-private schools, chains such as E-ACT or CET, a profit-making provider, teacher-proposed schools that may have over-estimated their own competence, and some parent-led groups (e.g. religious groups like Al-Madinah).

allyfe if you like what you see, they continue to deliver to schedule and without constant changes and there is a shortage of school places , you have nothing to loose by giving it a go. Even if the school is not fully subscribed, after the first year (which means you may end up being allocated the school even if you don't get any of your preferences), subject to positive outcomes being evident, there is no reason why the second year could not be off to a sprint. Take Archer Academy for instance.

The problem I have is that the Free School that would be an option for me as it stands now, just doesn't carry the credentials that makes me think it is the wonderful thing that Gove is trying to sell the concept on. However, the proposed Free School is something that has caught my interest. My DS is in yr4 so there is still time for things to develop before I make a decision.

The other issue I have is, if it turns out that the majority of people want more of the same with regards to successful state schools, then what exactly is the point in the Free School programme?

If a failing school is fully subscribed why can the school operations not be terminated, buildings and facilities be refurbished and a re-start instigated under a new management and staffing team. Why does it have to be solved by parents starting up their own school just up the road?

I just feel like the Government are saying that if we don't like what they are giving us then we should do it ourselves. To me this is just a cop out. I shouldn't have to start up my own school for my kids. If I wanted to do that I would HE.