You are here:   Education > Tristram Hunt's Lies About Free Schools
 

When I've made this argument before, the standard objection is that it's not fair to treat children as guinea pigs in a laboratory. We can't take a risk with their education because if something goes wrong they won't get a second chance. 

The problem with this is it assumes the risk of sending your child to the local community school is lower than sending him or her to a free school. Not true-419 schools in England were rated "inadequate" by Ofsted last year; only one of them was a free school. Sir Michael Wilshaw, head of Ofsted, estimated that in 2012 at least two million English children were attending schools that were either inadequate or required improvement, which might explain why a fifth of school leavers are functionally illiterate and functionally innumerate. That was the conclusion of a government-funded study carried out by Sheffield University in 2009. Professor Greg Brooks, one of the study's authors, said this had been true for at least 20 years.

What defenders of the status quo fail to acknowledge is that a significant percentage of comprehensives aren't fit for purpose. It's not the risk of children being let down by free schools they should worry about, but the certainty they will be let down if they attend a failing community school. Earlier this year, the OECD found that young adults in England rank 22nd out of 24 nations for literacy and 21st for numeracy, behind Estonia, Poland and Slovakia. Thanks to the last government's failure to address this systemic failure, England is the only country in the OECD survey where results are going backwards, with 16-24-year-olds performing worse than the older cohorts. Inevitably, the poorest performers are those on the lowest incomes — precisely the people whom the critics of Gove's reforms say they want to protect.

It's too early to say whether children at free schools will do better than their equivalents at community schools. The real test will be in 2016, when the first cohort of children to be admitted to the WLFS and the other free schools that opened in 2011 will get their GCSE results. I'm optimistic they will, and that the schools will pass other tests, too, such as lowering the attainment gap between children on free school meals and their peers. At the WLFS, the group that outperforms all others in standardised tests are girls on free school meals. This suggests that free schools are not a "dangerous ideological experiment", but a vital lifeline for children who might otherwise be submerged in poverty. As someone with a PhD from Oxford, Tristram Hunt should welcome this experiment rather than threatening to end it. 

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Rhys Jaggar
October 23rd, 2014
4:10 PM
1. The brand is a Tory one so Labour have to trash it. That's unethical and wrong, but it's the reality of power politics. Forget the people, forget frugal financial planning, smash it on principle! 2. The concept of Free Schools is being attacked, instead of improving the due diligence procedures which allowed certain schools to be founded that should never have been given the go-ahead. Again, that's politics, not societal value-add. When did that ever get a politician's attention?? 3. Innovation always finds it easier in a start-up situation. If a school already has pupils, it's almost impossible to do anything radical as you have a 'legacy' population of children doing things differently. That's not very practical. Free Schools are a way to encourage radical thinking, innovation, small-scale. Adopt the best, quickly stop the worst. 4. Engaging parents in running schools, if suitably qualified, is obviously healthy. They are parents, so they want good schools for their kids. The great thing about parents is that they mostly work in different arenas. That broadens the perspective beyond teachers and councillors. Internships, careers advice etc etc are likely to be far better with such breadth of professional experience.... 5. Benchmarking LEA schools vs non-LEA schools. Until you actually try both ways, all arguments about LEAs are dogmatic and political. This way, you get the chance to actually find out if the difference is actually marked, miniscule or favouring the status quo.

Malcolm McLean
December 8th, 2013
3:12 PM
It's illegal for a free school to select pupils by ability or by skin colour, and possibly parental income too - I'm not sure exactly what the law says on that last. So it's hard to see how a free school can be divisive, except on the interest principle. Parents who attach a high value to Latin will be attracted to WLFS, those who feel that the emphasis should be on science and technology might go elsewhere. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that. Parents are the people most likely to act in the best interests of their own children. "Parents decide" becomes a bit difficult in some situations, like creationism or radical Islam, but these are issues for only a minority of free schools. These marginal concerns cannot be allowed to drive policy for the majority, which should be that parents decide which schools flourish and which ones close, and that it's easy to set up a new school. A few failures are not a failure of the policy, but an essential part of it. Every new school coming into the system has to be balanced by another one failing. Bad schools close, new ones take their place, and the system reaches a state where almost all of the schools are very good, with just a few weak spots being steadily eliminated by competition. It's also a fair policy. A teacher once told me "we get all the rubbish [I'm afraid State school teachers really do talk like that], then they wonder why it's failing". With a free school system, you can't change the children. Maybe your results aren't very good. So someone else can set up a school next door and do better. If that doesn't happen, then maybe it's not possible to get better results with that intake. A school can only fail if there's some else who can do a better job, in which case it's right the other person should teach those children, regardless of where the original school came in its Ofsted inspection. There's another advantage to free schools I don't like to mention. Public expenditure can be cut gracefully. Currently there's a flat per capita grant of 6,000 a head. Let's say that public finances come under pressure, and it's necessary to reduce that to 5,000. Now any free school worth its salt will have contingency plans for a dip in numbers. The schools respond by making a myriad of little, local, efficiency savings and reductions. The system is worse, how could it not be, when we've cut by 20%. But it hasn't responded catastrophically.

DaveDaveDave
November 27th, 2013
10:11 PM
I cannot take a working class hero named Tristram seriously, so I didn't bother reading. If there's one thing I fekking hate, it's middle class fekking soshulists. Have a nice day.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.