Five myths about Free Schools . As Mark Twain said, a lie can travel half way round the world while the truth is still putting its boots on. I thought I’d take this opportunity to correct five of the lies told about Free Schools.
1. “Money for free schools will come from ‘the extremely wasteful Building Schools For The Future’ budget.” Suzanne Moore, Mail on Sunday, July 11, 2010
Not true. The money saved from cutting the BSF programme will not be placed at the disposal of the Department for Education for Michael Gove to spend how he likes, i.e., on Free Schools. How could it? The money doesn’t exist. Cutting expenditure in any government department does not magically create a huge pile of treasure that can then be used for other purposes. Rather, it means that the government will not have to raise that money by increasing its borrowing requirement. So far, a grand total of £50 million has been set aside for capital expenditure on Free Schools — which, under BSF, would pay for a single, solitary school. Michael Gove cobbled that together from re-allocating funds that had been earmarked for advising schools on what computers they should buy. Happily, they can use cnet instead.
2. “Free schools will have to find their pupils from somewhere, preferably poached from existing local schools, shrinking their budgets and possibly leading to a spiral of decline …” Fiona Millar, The Guardian, June 18, 2010
Not true. Of all the groups I’ve spoken to hoping to set up Free Schools not one intends to poach pupils from existing schools. On the contrary, they will grow incrementally, starting with a Reception class or a Year 7 class, depending on whether they’re primaries or secondaries. Will this mean that existing state schools are deprived of much-needed pupils who would otherwise go to them if the Free Schools didn’t exist? No. England is in the midst of a population boom and will shortly need an additional 300,000 primary school places and, before long, 300,000 secondary school places. Far from poaching pupils from existing schools, the establishment of Free Schools will just mean they’re marginally less over-subscribed.
3. “It’s freedom, in our view, to reduce the vision for 21st century schools to children being educated in a run-down flat over an off licence …” Chris Keates, General Secretary of the NASUWT, April 9, 2010
Not true. The Department for Education will only grant funding agreements to Academies that propose to open schools in buildings that meet the minimum standards set out in the Department’s “legs and regs”. (Think telephone directory.) Michael Gove has promised to cut some of the red tape around what buildings are deemed suitable for school use but he hasn’t done so yet and in my view he won’t cut much of it (if any). Chris Keats also said in the same speech that the Conservatives’ Free Schools policy would favour the “pushy and privileged”. How? By enabling them to educate their children in run-down flats above off licenses? This is typical of the double-think at the heart of most Free School critiques. They are going to be run by a bunch of religious nutters in nissan huts at the bottom of their gardens and, at the same time, siphon off all the most motivated learners, thereby depriving neighbouring comprehensives of a vital resource.
4. Free Schools are a “vanity project for yummy mummies in West London”. Tristram Hunt, The Today Programme, May 18, 2010
Not true. Over 720 groups of parents and teachers have registered their interest in setting up Free Schools with the New Schools Network and, as far as I know, only one of them is based in West London. More to the point, these groups are by no means exclusively middle class. It’s patronising tosh to claim that the only middle class people have the intellectual resources to start Free Schools.
5. “[P]ushy parents can set up a bijou academy free of any sane inclusive admissions policy …” Steve Pound MP, The Ealing Gazette, June 29, 2010
Not true. The admissions policies of Free Schools will have to be fully inclusive, i.e., they will have to give priority to looked after children as well as children with Special Educational Needs. Questions were raised in the House of Lords during the reading of the Academies Bill as to whether Free Schools would have to give priority in their admissions arrangements to statemented children. At present, maintained schools do and so do most Academies, though unlike maintained schools they don’t have to. In a letter to school governors dated July 2, 2010 Lord Hill announced that he would be tabling an amendment to the Academies Bill to ensure that this discrepancy is eliminated and that in future all new Academies, including Free Schools, will have to admit any child with an SEN statement who applies. More generally, it’s simply not true to claim that the only children educated at Free Schools will be those of pushy parents. All Free School admissions policies will have to be compatible with the School Admissions Code, a document more or less designed with the sole purpose of preventing sharp-elbowed, middle class parents from being able to secure preferential treatment for their children. In the case of the school my group is trying to start, not only will it not be the exclusive preserve of the local middle classes, I don’t even know if I’ll be able to get my own children in. (Note to Steve Pound: Of the 600 parents who’ve contacted me expressing an interest in applying to the West London Free School, many of them are Labour Party voters who live in your constituency.) ( telegraph.co.uk )
1. “Money for free schools will come from ‘the extremely wasteful Building Schools For The Future’ budget.” Suzanne Moore, Mail on Sunday, July 11, 2010
Not true. The money saved from cutting the BSF programme will not be placed at the disposal of the Department for Education for Michael Gove to spend how he likes, i.e., on Free Schools. How could it? The money doesn’t exist. Cutting expenditure in any government department does not magically create a huge pile of treasure that can then be used for other purposes. Rather, it means that the government will not have to raise that money by increasing its borrowing requirement. So far, a grand total of £50 million has been set aside for capital expenditure on Free Schools — which, under BSF, would pay for a single, solitary school. Michael Gove cobbled that together from re-allocating funds that had been earmarked for advising schools on what computers they should buy. Happily, they can use cnet instead.
2. “Free schools will have to find their pupils from somewhere, preferably poached from existing local schools, shrinking their budgets and possibly leading to a spiral of decline …” Fiona Millar, The Guardian, June 18, 2010
Not true. Of all the groups I’ve spoken to hoping to set up Free Schools not one intends to poach pupils from existing schools. On the contrary, they will grow incrementally, starting with a Reception class or a Year 7 class, depending on whether they’re primaries or secondaries. Will this mean that existing state schools are deprived of much-needed pupils who would otherwise go to them if the Free Schools didn’t exist? No. England is in the midst of a population boom and will shortly need an additional 300,000 primary school places and, before long, 300,000 secondary school places. Far from poaching pupils from existing schools, the establishment of Free Schools will just mean they’re marginally less over-subscribed.
3. “It’s freedom, in our view, to reduce the vision for 21st century schools to children being educated in a run-down flat over an off licence …” Chris Keates, General Secretary of the NASUWT, April 9, 2010
Not true. The Department for Education will only grant funding agreements to Academies that propose to open schools in buildings that meet the minimum standards set out in the Department’s “legs and regs”. (Think telephone directory.) Michael Gove has promised to cut some of the red tape around what buildings are deemed suitable for school use but he hasn’t done so yet and in my view he won’t cut much of it (if any). Chris Keats also said in the same speech that the Conservatives’ Free Schools policy would favour the “pushy and privileged”. How? By enabling them to educate their children in run-down flats above off licenses? This is typical of the double-think at the heart of most Free School critiques. They are going to be run by a bunch of religious nutters in nissan huts at the bottom of their gardens and, at the same time, siphon off all the most motivated learners, thereby depriving neighbouring comprehensives of a vital resource.
4. Free Schools are a “vanity project for yummy mummies in West London”. Tristram Hunt, The Today Programme, May 18, 2010
Not true. Over 720 groups of parents and teachers have registered their interest in setting up Free Schools with the New Schools Network and, as far as I know, only one of them is based in West London. More to the point, these groups are by no means exclusively middle class. It’s patronising tosh to claim that the only middle class people have the intellectual resources to start Free Schools.
5. “[P]ushy parents can set up a bijou academy free of any sane inclusive admissions policy …” Steve Pound MP, The Ealing Gazette, June 29, 2010
Not true. The admissions policies of Free Schools will have to be fully inclusive, i.e., they will have to give priority to looked after children as well as children with Special Educational Needs. Questions were raised in the House of Lords during the reading of the Academies Bill as to whether Free Schools would have to give priority in their admissions arrangements to statemented children. At present, maintained schools do and so do most Academies, though unlike maintained schools they don’t have to. In a letter to school governors dated July 2, 2010 Lord Hill announced that he would be tabling an amendment to the Academies Bill to ensure that this discrepancy is eliminated and that in future all new Academies, including Free Schools, will have to admit any child with an SEN statement who applies. More generally, it’s simply not true to claim that the only children educated at Free Schools will be those of pushy parents. All Free School admissions policies will have to be compatible with the School Admissions Code, a document more or less designed with the sole purpose of preventing sharp-elbowed, middle class parents from being able to secure preferential treatment for their children. In the case of the school my group is trying to start, not only will it not be the exclusive preserve of the local middle classes, I don’t even know if I’ll be able to get my own children in. (Note to Steve Pound: Of the 600 parents who’ve contacted me expressing an interest in applying to the West London Free School, many of them are Labour Party voters who live in your constituency.) ( telegraph.co.uk )
No comments:
Post a Comment