Free Schools - What scares the teaching profession so much?

[Deva Link]

mph1977 said:

PF62 said:

A maximum class size of 20 pupils, against the usual minimum of 28. That has got to have a significant impact on results, and how the teachers in each type of school is perceived.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-239... "Free schools are funded on the same basis as others", yeah right. If the free school is receiving the same £x per pupil as the 'normal' school I will eat my hat.

it does except of course the LEA doesn't doesn't withhold the excessive sums required to support it;s bloated structures ... A lot of the stuiff with Free Schools sounds very much likewhat happened with GM except these are new schools rather than existing ones ...

Acadamies are funded just the same. Only difference with the Free Schools is the per school money that's given to all schools looks high as they're starting up with small numbers of pupils.

[Superficial]

johnfm said:

This confirms you are spouting drivel.

Some decent research shows the (not) shocking outcome that the more a child spends studying, the better their results.

Children's schooled day and long holidays are a historic convention dating back to pre Victorian times when adults ASSUMED children lacked stamina to study, play and learn for more than 5 minutes before getting tired.

You are merely perpetuating the myth.

The education system and reading, writing and maths standards of students would be improved at zero cost merely by cutting out 4 weeks of unnecessary school holidays - and saved parents thousands in holiday child care costs.
G

'Some' 'decent' very questionable terms regarding the research, if you aren't even committed to it how do you expect to convince me?

The criticism I have with the education system in this country is that play isn't valued enough. Foundation stage doesn't have enough play IMO, once KS1 begins it's out the window til playtime. You aren't talking about stamina to play and learn, you're talking about stamina to do a full 7 hour day learning.

Oh, and your last sentence shows what it all boils down to: cost. What a surprise *ehem ehem*

[Traveller]

el stovey said:

School isn't just about results though it's about developing your child and preparing them for adulthood.

That is exactly right, there is more to an education than just remembering facts, social development is equally important. Education is about preparing children for life, something the teaching profession has systematically had beaten out of them over the last few years, with the focus only being on league tables and points. The neglect shown to foreign language skills is symptomatic of this.

Edited by Traveller on Wednesday 7th September 07:16

[turbobloke]

PF62 said:

Happy82 said:

So what is it that worries them so much?

A maximum class size of 20 pupils, against the usual minimum of 28. That has got to have a significant impact on results, and how the teachers in each type of school is perceived.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-239... "Free schools are funded on the same basis as others", yeah right. If the free school is receiving the same £x per pupil as the 'normal' school I will eat my hat.

You may want to stock up on ketchup, though there are escape routes if you want to split hairs and keep your hat in one piece

Apart from diseconomy funding as available to a new school opening without its full cohort of pupils, Free Schools receive the same per-pupil funding level as other schools in their area. What might be seen as 'extra' funding is merely the Local Authority topslice which is given to Academies and Free Schools direct, since they're outside of LA control...they will still need to use some of the money to obtain similar services, but are free to choose.

"The annual revenue funding for Free Schools in 2011-12 will be based on the average funding received by maintained schools and Academies in the same local authority using a simple and transparent formula."

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/typ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10161371

[Digga]

rover 623gsi said:

when I was at school many moons ago the school days were longer...

Me too. I think it just seemed that way though.

[thinfourth2]

el stovey said:

School isn't just about results though it's about developing your child and preparing them for adulthood.

I'm not sure I'd be rushing to send my kids to take part in the free school experiment instead of one with a proven track record. If your kids do badly early on, or are unhappy in school it can have a huge negative influence on how they develop later.

Sadly all that is measured is how many A grades come out the other end

[turbobloke]

thinfourth2 said:

I'm not sure I'd be rushing to send my kids to take part in the free school experiment instead of one with a proven track record.

Ironically one of the key reasons motivating groups to set up a new Free School, in reality rather than in the Guardian, is because there is no adequate local LA provision. Clearly this depends on what is viewed as 'adequate' but in any normal interpretation the situation is such that many parents consider that the choice they have is no choice.

[petemurphy]

turbobloke said:

Ironically one of the key reasons motivating groups to set up a new Free School, in reality rather than in the Guardian, is because there is no adequate local LA provision. Clearly this depends on what is viewed as 'adequate' but in any normal interpretation the situation is such that many parents consider that the choice they have is no choice.

i dont understand - theres not enough places so parents set up their own school yet its paid by the state so why isnt the la opening it? must admit not read much about it but am guessing it will cost tax payer more..

[turbobloke]

petemurphy said:

turbobloke said:

Ironically one of the key reasons motivating groups to set up a new Free School, in reality rather than in the Guardian, is because there is no adequate local LA provision. Clearly this depends on what is viewed as 'adequate' but in any normal interpretation the situation is such that many parents consider that the choice they have is no choice.

i dont understand - theres not enough places so parents set up their own school yet its paid by the state so why isnt the la opening it? must admit not read much about it but am guessing it will cost tax payer more..

Not enough places, known as 'basic need' is a major issue as in some London boroughs the LA is outide of its statutory duty to provide a school place for all children of school age, since all their schools are full and there are more applications than available places in Reception classes. The quality issue is a separate one. As to why LAs aren't opening new schools, in the recent past Labour handed out hundreds of £millions in emergecy funding which was often spent on temporary classrooms in playgrounds, beyond that, part of the fundamental reasoning behind Free Schools is to remove the dead hand of the LA from proceedings.

As to cost, the capital costs of new Free Schools are looking to be some way below the Labour approach of building expensive new palaces at over £20m a pop. Whether the cost at whatever level is justified must wait until there are some outputs from Free Schools that can be measured. Naturally unions and other vested interests are suffering from premature adjudication and calling the result already but that should be ignored as nobody knows yet.

[Hooli]

turbobloke said:

are suffering from premature adjudication

I had to read that twice.

[Deva Link]

petemurphy said:

i dont understand - theres not enough places so parents set up their own school yet its paid by the state so why isnt the la opening it? must admit not read much about it but am guessing it will cost tax payer more..

It's not just "places" - it's places in the schools the parents want their children to go to.

Good schools will be over-subscribed - parents don't like what's left, so they open their own school.

[IainT]

Gove played a belter on R5 this morning. systematically took all the counter-claims to pieces. Held the pieces up to the light of day and calmly put them away.

He also pointed out that new schools under the previous lot/LA control cost around £30M average to set up. These new schools? £6M.

Campbell was going on about all the classroom refurbishments that had been scrapped and that the money should have been used on that and not new school places. Gove educated him in the reality that these refurbishments would not have created new school places that are required.

Complaints that they will not be held to account or to high standards - yet they're all governed by OFSTED.

Ridicule that there were only 24 being opened. Gove pointed out that that's more new schools under this plan than the academy schools under the entire Liebour admin and at a fracion of the costs.

Questions about why we weren't going down the Swedish route where schools are profit-making businesses. Gove explains that we have no need to do that and that there were many charities and philanthropists in the UK who want to invest in public education.

Was really quite nice to listen to with Mr Nikki AA Campbell actually sounding quite appeased at the end.


I think Dellingpole is right that Gove is one of the few bright points in the current administration.

[Raja]

I'd rather see a child of mine attending a free school that is trying something different then sending them to the local state secondary that has failed every generation previous for time immemorial.

I'm just disappointed that there seems to be too many missionary type organisations increasingly becoming involved in education once again. You only needs to look at the list of sponsors for both the last wave of academies and the new waves of free schools to see the faith focus. I'd have thought that in a society such as ours the big trusts and foundations with non religious philanthropic objectives would have led some of these schools.

Regardless, I look forward to the evidence that demonstrates how free schools established in the poorest areas, taking students from the same catchment areas proving that their approach produces results that the traditional state sector can only dream of.

Local Authorities are worried, and rightly so imo, they're about to be found out, once again.

[turbobloke]

IainT said:

Gove played a belter on R5 this morning.

. . .

I think Dellingpole is right that Gove is one of the few bright points in the current administration.

That's why it's called the Gove-rnment

[Mark Benson]

el stovey said:

School isn't just about results though it's about developing your child and preparing them for adulthood.

I'm not sure I'd be rushing to send my kids to take part in the free school experiment instead of one with a proven track record. If your kids do badly early on, or are unhappy in school it can have a huge negative influence on how they develop later.

What do you think the comprehensive system has been for the last God-knows-how many years?
Initiative after initative, slogan after slogan, fad after fad and still we have 13 to 20% of kids leaving school with no qualifications and limited literacy and numeracy skills.
The proven track record of state schooling is mediocre and focussed entirely on training kids to pass exams rather than to think critically or independantly. The ONLY thing that matters to most state schools is how many kids pass their GCSEs, those at the top and bottom of the ability scale are shamelessly neglected in favour of dragging as many as possible through the system.

It's depressing as a parent that it's pay through the nose for an independent school (which gets ever more expensive as more parents realise how much of a let-down the state sector is) or hope that the school you get your kids into is one of the better ones of an unfailingly bad bunch, all desperately trying to drag themselves down to the lowest common denominator.

[lockhart flawse]

What still surprises me is that the educational establishment, which sees no other way than its Comprehensive system, will not even acknowledge that when people are paying for schooling or now, establishing free schools beyond the remit of the NUT (which is the establishment), they expect and create systems totally different to the Comprehensive system. These include :

discipline in school (above all I think)
school uniforms, correctly worn
competitive sport
proper subjects
setting by ability
an ethos that education is a chance to progress for the significant number that seem to be abandoned by so many mainly inner-city schools at the moment.

I would imagine that the head would be able to chuck out pupils who won't conform before they ruin it for the majority that would like to learn something. So I think free schools have a good chance of being very successful and would expect many more to open over the next few years.

L.F.

[petemurphy]

Deva Link said:

It's not just "places" - it's places in the schools the parents want their children to go to.

Good schools will be over-subscribed - parents don't like what's left, so they open their own school.

will the crap schools be shut or does the taxpayer then have to pay for both?

[turbobloke]

petemurphy said:

Deva Link said:

It's not just "places" - it's places in the schools the parents want their children to go to.

Good schools will be over-subscribed - parents don't like what's left, so they open their own school.

will the crap schools be shut or does the taxpayer then have to pay for both?

Revenue funding is per pupil so as numbers drop, funding does likewise.

Free Schools are a supply side reform based on increasing parental choice, there needs to be some surplus places to facilitate choice but not in excessive numbers.

[Deva Link]

Mark Benson said:

The proven track record of state schooling is mediocre and focussed entirely on training kids to pass exams rather than to think critically or independantly. The ONLY thing that matters to most state schools is how many kids pass their GCSEs, those at the top and bottom of the ability scale are shamelessly neglected in favour of dragging as many as possible through the system.

Those comments about passing exams are even more relevant to private schools. They kick kids out before they get to external exams if their results are likely to mess up the schools statistics.

And there's a huge row going on from private schools who put kids in for the International Baccalaureate as they felt A levels were losing their value, only for the kids to get worse results than expected and many have missed univerity places.

[Mark Benson]

Deva Link said:

Those comments about passing exams are even more relevant to private schools. They kick kids out before they get to external exams if their results are likely to mess up the schools statistics.

And there's a huge row going on from private schools who put kids in for the International Baccalaureate as they felt A levels were losing their value, only for the kids to get worse results than expected and many have missed univerity places.

But I can choose my child's independent school, based on it's ethos. I'm stuck with the comprehensive system wherever I look.