5punk

Seeing as some of you are proud parents™ I'd be great to hear your opinions on this.

Personally i think it's the most bollocks idea since the testicle. The only parents that will actually want to run these school are ones with agendas in the first place. It surely would have been more beneficial just to invest the £50m into the education system.

I've not put a lot of thought into it, but my instincts agree. The first thing I thought of was communes where groups of hippy parents teach (or rather preach) their own agendas.

That's the argument that everyone keeps bandying around and I don't get it. The money is still going into the education system, just to a different school. The government either builds more state schools with the cash, or gives it to someone else to build and run them which in the long term ends up a lot cheaper and everyone wins. Plus you get more choice, more accountability to the local community rather than centrally run rubber stamp education (isn't that what everyone kept asking for?) and they remain under the watchful eye of ofsted. Makes good sense to me.

My mate's dad used to be on the board of governors for his school and apparently there was the fair share of nutjobs who wanted to be 'part of the board' and have their say in the education. Being nutjobs they had to turn them away. HOWEVER, these are exactly the sort of people that will be wanting to set up the schools; those with something to prove.

Another thing was that as these schools may not have the biggest amount of funding is that they are going to look at big business to give them money. The idea of a school sponsored by coca cola is a bit

Sol wrote:there was the fair share of nutjobs who wanted to be 'part of the board' and have their say in the education.

Replace 'part of the board' with
government
council
neighbourhood watch
PTA
etc

and replace "education" with
country
your borough
your street
your kids
etc

To quote Douglas Adams

"The major problem, one of the major problems, for there are several, with governing people is that of who you get to do it. Or, rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well known and much lamented fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."

.

amblin wrote:I'll take one.

Noooo, _three_ schools - you can have 3 of 'em...

.

You are so going to get arrested and put on the register one day. I'd

My instinctive (as in unresearched) views on this are that it's a bit of a silly idea. The only people who will set these up are those with a particular agenda to push and/or the time and money to invest in what will be a massive undertaking. I think the Douglas Adams quote above is spot on when it comes to schools!

To fund these schools, money will be taken from other existing schools. Fair enough, the amount spent per pupil (I heard £3-4,000 a year) will stay the same, but taking resources from one school to start another will only be to the detriment of the existing schools, who will decline in their marks making the rationale for new schools a rather self-fulfilling prophecy.

Likewise with academies. It's one thing to turn a struggling school into an academy in an effort to turn things around, but if a school is already performing well, why does it need changing? I have a fundamental problem with companies/individuals sponsoring schools in order to have influence on what is taught. Similarly, the national curriculum is there to ensure that an appropriate range of and depth of topics are taught. Take foreign languages for example - due in no small part to my upbringing I believe that knowing at least one foreign language is a vital part of a rounded education, and I strongly dislike the idea that they're not compulsory.

Here endeth the rant.

In a city like mine where most of the schools even in the more well-off areas share catchment with poorer areas, as that's just how the city is arranged, they all have to cater to students with differing backgrounds. Many see this as all schools falling to the lowest common denominator, with the only other options being to move away or pay for private education, so it's clear why some see a 'free' 'better' option as appealing.

It's unclear whether these PTA-answerable schools would have specific entry policies, excluding less desirable pupils, so whatever the entry criteria handed down by the goverment I can envisage some people doing their damndest to find a way of making 'their' school only open to 'like-minded' familes of their preference.

The types of community more likely to take up this venture are educated middle-class ones, with working class families - who care about their kids no less than anyone else - less likely to have the confidence or opportunity to do so. Good education therefore once again becomes hereditary, which is a return to the very bad old days.

I applaud the work done in schools in difficult areas in a world where everything is judged by league tables. I visited one last week for an interview which takes in one of the most depressed areas in the city and was extremely impressed by what I saw. The school has shrunk dramatically from its former size, and concentrated on a more personal 'feel'. Staff are typically young and enthusiastic yet well-paid. I really got the feeling that with the more personal touch granted by the smaller population, pupils were less likely to 'slip through the cracks'.

I know from experience as one of the bright kids in a big school 'dragged down' to the lowest level that the most money, time and effort was spent on the kids having difficulty, leaving me to average through when I should have excelled, but a return to the old two-tier system just seems morally wrong to me, as it judges students at a certain age then sets them on that path for life.

I might have had a better education if I had gone to a school that recognised my abilities, I might have got better exam results and might find it easier to find a job now. But I'm pretty sure I'd be a God-damn awful shit of a person without that solid grounding in a mixed-class social environment.

By your logic I am clearly a goddamn aweful shit of a person.

(ib4 obvious trolls )

I think leaping to the conclusion that giving teachers the opportunity to open free schools as an alternative to the local state school will make education hereditary is taking it a bit far. These are not private independent schools that charge fees, they are in many ways very similar to your regular state school but less crippled by bureaucracy and government regulators (although still monitored by ofsted). Furthermore, they will still need to sell their curriculum to the parents or they won't get any pupils. It is highly unlikely that some batshit hippy will attract any students.

Financially we have to look at the long term. They key point here is that this a method by which the government can create more school places (which everyone needs) without spending shit loads more money (which they don't have) and so in the long run being able to reinvest more money into the government sponsored education system.

friznit wrote:By your logic I am clearly a goddamn aweful shit of a person.

awful.


Also, as far as the free schools go, it could be a good thing, more schools = more scope for specialisation, should mean a better standard of education for those who want/need it.

Those who are just thick and don't want to learn can stay in the crappy state schools and enjoy it.

Personally, I think it's going to be a management nightmare for the Government.

The Gov' pay schools for taking on pupils, if this goes ahead, there's going to be a shit load of small schools springing up which'll be hard to administrate.

Ofsted will probably also need more funding if they're going to be monitoring all these extra schools properly as well.

That money spend on the management side could probably be plowed back into the current school system instead (which is where it'll probably come from).

friznit wrote:By your logic I am clearly a goddamn aweful shit of a person.

I just think I would have been, I was sort of going that way, but walking through this 'horrid, poor' area every day to school gave me a better perpective I feel than the surburban estate I grew up on. I've lived within a few streets of that school for the last 20 years now.

My only concern was that the entry policies might exclude people, but given they are not clear, or defined yet, I guess it's unfair to say that. As it is people have little choice, as the existing schools have predetermined catchment areas, so I guess a little competition and choice isn't a bad thing and more schools hopefully means smaller class sizes, which should mean every student's needs are addressed.