Free school supporters cannot have it both ways. If they want to herald a new dawn of dog-eat-dog competition then that's fine but they should be prepared to accept that some of the schools which fail will be free schools. A small number of free schools have fallen at the first hurdle, in failing to attract viable numbers. Rationally, they should be shown the same mercy as that afforded any other school in this brave new world i.e. none whatsoever.

The notion that these schools - whose purported intention is to promote a free-market approach in education - are going to be propped up by state subsidy is surely one of the most spectacular ironies of recent political history. Unless, of course, one subscribed to the view that free schools have - in truth - precious little to do with competition / improving education / reducing costs and are instead subject to rather more pernicious, unsavoury agendas involving class-driven segregation and middle-class vote buying. In which case, splashing even more taxpayer's money over them might be entirely understandable.

Leeds seems to have really picked up on this idea with 3 schools.

Be interested in the Leeds Retail and Financial Services Academy and Khalsa Science Academy

That's my point - I don't know of any which are not opening, despite there being some which can't be economically viable. The Beccles one attracted just over 30 applications across years 7, 8 and 9. It will, apparently, still open. Others in Suffolk have done better but are still below a viable size and are well short of being full. I don't believe supporting these schools is a good use of taxpayers' money, nor do I believe it to be in the spirit of genuine competition.

In Suffolk it's worse because there has been even more interference in the free market as a result of the LA re-drawing catchment areas for free transport. Parents have been told that they will only get free transport if they send their child to the free school, instead of their usual catchment secondary. One existing school has countered this by offering to pay transport costs out of their budget but most can't afford to. I can't believe this kind of 'competition' - a.k.a. who will go bankrupt first - was really what Gove had in mind.

Where an existing school's catchment is naturally small (e.g. a rural area) then subsidy is justified. Where there is a need for a new school due to increasing pupil numbers, again, a subsidy is justified whilst the new school grows by year group. However, I don't believe a subsidy can be justified in an area where no new school was needed, and pupils attending the free school could have gone to a good existing alternative.

The unions don't like free schools for a whole host of reasons, few of which I subscribe to. Indeed, I can accept the rationale for a free school where the existing state offer is poor and has been consistently poor for years. I'm not convinced it's the most efficient approach but there is at least a clear moral justification.

However, in areas where there are already genuinely good or outstanding schools I do not believe that free schools should be allowed to drive down the quality of education provided in those existing schools by diverting funding away from them. Playing games with transport and subsidies makes it look like there are more agendas at work than raising educational standards. Perhaps such agendas don't exist and it is mere incompetence; either way it is not a situation I find myself able to support. If that makes me appear to be a union apologist, so be it.

I don't believe I ever suggested that this was happening on a 'widespread' basis; forgive me if I did. However, living in Suffolk I do know that the Beccles, Saxmundham, Ixworth and Breckland free schools are / will be in communities already well-served by good or outstanding schools. There is no compelling educational case for them; the existing schools were / are doing a great job.

For me, it's not about 'stopping' the process. I just don't want free schools which have not been able to fill their places to be subsidised, nor do I want there to be compulsion (via transport subsidies) for parents to send their children to a free school. Neither is compatible with a free market approach. You said earlier that you considered it 'fortunate' that diseconomy funding would allow essentially unviable free schools to get started regardless. To me, that really doesn't sit well with a genuine belief in market forces. Perhaps I read too much into that one word?

I don't think it's about being confident to 'fight off' the competition. A significant number of parents choose a school based on convenience and cost, not educational quality. So if 50 pupils who would have gone to the existing school end up going to the free school because that's the only one to which they can now get free transport, those students are not going to be 'won back' by some notional improvement in quality at the existing school. An improvement which would, in any case, now be rendered less likely thanks to the loss of funding associated with those 50 children.

In such a situation, I cannot fathom how the creation of a free school is going to improve education for any of the children concerned. At best, the children at both schools end up receiving a good education, which is what they were going to get anyway. Except that with the free school in play, the taxpayer is now funding all the additional costs of infrastructure and administration that an additional (inefficiently small) school generates.

I suppose what I am trying to say is that the notion of a free school being appropriate in every community is as nonsensical as the Unions' blanket insistence that they should never be countenanced in any situation. Both positions smack of political, not educational, motivation.

Being Asian doesn't preclude you from being Christian. Not that I imagine that the parents of most kids are religious.

However, I fail to see how the government can defend schools being able to select by religion, but not academic ability. I'd have thought the latter was much more relevant to a school, but apparently I'm wrong.


Competition in education is not a good thing because it's easier to cheat the system than it is to teach better- because actually teaching standards are pretty high: most teachers do a decent job given the kids in front of them.

As we saw with the exam boards, what competition in education does is lead to a gradual (so no-one notices at first) decline in standards, which makes it look like people are doing better. I don't think it's a good thing that Universities are now re-introducing entrance exams as A level results don't allow them to differentiate between candidates, for example.

I think we misunderstand each other. I've already said that such funding is appropriate for new schools starting with one year group. Of course that's going to be necessary and of course free schools would be impossible to set up without it. What I am objecting to is additional subsidy when that individual year group is going to be nowhere near a viable size because too few parents have chosen the free school. That is what you appeared to be advocating earlier.

I agree entirely. But the situation in those areas of Suffolk where the free schools are being established is absolutely not one of chronic underperformance. I take the point about second-guessing outcomes but I would contend that free school 'experiments' should initially be confined to areas where existing performance is poor so that if they do fail then at least the children will, in effect, be no worse off.

I also understand your point about spare capacity being necessary for competition, but it's worth remembering that the demographic bulge is, to some extent, localised. In some areas it doesn't actually hit secondary level until 2017. Funding spare capacity long before it's actually needed doesn't seem to be a sensible use of money to me.

Yes, to a degree we may have been misunderstanding each other and now ISWYM. The position of those small schools you are prepared to allow to survive seemingly because they happen to be in existence will have had a similar opening to the 'non-viable' free schools you wish to deny funding for. The difference is that the free schools are very unlikely to need diseconomy funding forever whereas existing small schools do. The schools you seem to want to allow are more of a drain on resources than new free schools - but then I'm not arguing against either.

The bulge in primary demand is virtually national and absolutely desperate in all but four London boroughs, just as the secondary situation will be in a couple of years' time but yes I agree in some locations later than the typical 2014/15. By the same token there are pockets of deficit secondary places including outside London right now such as parts of Calderdale, Lancs, Rutland, Surrey and E/W Sussex. Again it's London leading the way with 10 boroughs facing a 10% shortfall in places while 6 boroughs are between 10% and 30% below the line.

I'd like to see basic rates in free schools and academies matching other schools, which at present appears to be the norm, but with higher rates of pay (beyond anything in TPCD) available for high performing staff, and alongside that a faster route to removing those teachers who are failing to provide an acceptable standard of education in their lessons. When some folk often in unions claim fast can't be fair I would reply that the concept of fairness applies to all but should focus primarily on the pupil position more than the teacher. Schools exist for pupils to get their one chance at a decent compulsory education, not to prop up inadequate teachers.

As per earlier posts, it's about one-third of the 102 recently approved free schools, in keeping with the ~34% of existing state schools.

With smaller numbers it may vary more in the 102 newly approved free schools but I would imagine the education department has its eye on the national picture and will want to reflect that where possible while also acknowledging the wishes of local parents.