Good to see broad scepticism of so called “Free Schools”.

Has ever an idea been so ludicrous as to believe that schools will magically improve just because you change their reporting structure (and so lose accountability – and we know what happens then. Think Jarvis and Rail maintenance)?

Utterly idiotic.

“As more horror stories come out of private companies profiting from education, expect support to fall even more.”

When you say “horror stories”, do you mean the horrific idea that companies make a profit from education – or that things might go wrong?

Frankly, it would be a miracle for nothing to go wrong, and I know that every opponent of the idea will be dancing with delight the moment someone gets so much as a paper cut in class.

Or will you limit such political dances to when genuine problems occur?

If you object to profit, can I presume you loathe WH Smiths for selling profit making pencil cases and protractor sets (do they still use those?). How about the paper pulp companies that produce paper – at a profit – for the school books, or the publishers who make a profit selling those books.

I hope none of the teachers “make a profit” by earning more than their bare cost of living.

That would be truly horrific.

Public not convinced by “Free schools”

Excellent.

So presumably they will not send their children to them, and they will fail.

So what have you got to worry about?

3. Pagar

Scarce resources should not be ploughed into ventures no one wants.

Why wait for failure? Head it off at the pass.

Why wait for failure? Head it off at the pass.

I had a conversation with a Swedish educationalist recently and asked her how the free schools experiment was going there.

“I think it will soon be over” she replied.

“Now the state schools are getting there act together and starting to catch up with them on results. So I think they have done their job.”

Out of politeness, I refrained from pointing out the logical conclusion…..

Pagar @ 3

So presumably they will not send their children to them, and they will fail.

Er, what if all the local schools become free schools, and then what? You will lose your choice, then won’t you? You will be forced to send your child to that school whether or not you want to. In effect, the market will not be ‘free’ if the so-called ‘free’ schools are the only option.

Jim,

Er, what if all the local schools become free schools, and then what? You will lose your choice, then won’t you? You will be forced to send your child to that school whether or not you want to. In effect, the market will not be ‘free’ if the so-called ‘free’ schools are the only option.

No, because you can always start a new free school…

That’s the point of this – it means you do not have to settle for substandard education (and believe me, there are many areas of the country where unless you are prepared to pay or pretend to be religious (both anathema to me) then your kids’ education will be substandard) because the provision is restricted to bad choices. It stops government inertia condemning kids to a set range of substandard education.

@ Jim

what if all the local schools become free schools, and then what? You will lose your choice, then won’t you? You will be forced to send your child to that school whether or not you want to.

I will send my child to the school that is the best fit to add value to my child’s education.

But if there is demand for a particular kind of school in a particular area, the logic of the market says that someone will open one. Admittedly this will probably require to await the next stage of the revolution, which will involve vouchers.

Let’s face it, in Local Education Authorities where local councils have been Labour controlled since time immemorial, it is not that difficult to ensure that maintained schools, with councillors on their boards of governors, don’t become too ambitious about raising academic standards – for which, it must be admitted, there is often little local public demand.

Watchman @ 7

I sometimes wonder what motivates people to post on these boards. You cannot seriously believe that we can ‘all’ start our own ‘free schools’? Neither can you believe that the vast majority of the public are taken in and they truly believe they can all start their own free schools either?

You seriously believe that the infrastructure is there hundred of thousands of ‘free’ schools to pop up spontaneously, and that parents have the time or the inclination to employ staff run the buildings etc?

Seriously, sit down with a bit of paper and write all this down.

In maintained schools in London and the South East, women graduates contribute a disproportionate number of teachers to comprehensive and, usually selective, all-boys schools.

This happens because the women often have graduate husbands attracted by senior private or public sector jobs who are looking for fulfilling careers of their own, preferably with jobs which makes use of their degrees. If anything this trend is likely to continue as women now comprise the majority of undergraduates in British universities.

I venture to suggest that this cadre of women graduates might be very interested in starting and staffing free schools.

11
Perhaps the women graduates were selected for the jobs because they had better degrees and appeared more appropriate for the jobs of teaching in comprehensives and selective all boys schools. And considering how well selective schools perform, their greater numbers, in those institutions, seem to be justified.

“But if there is demand for a particular kind of school in a particular area, the logic of the market says that someone will open one”

Do you think the reason Somalia doesn’t have a network of schools offering a similar kind of education to the british public school network is because there is no demand for it?

Pagar @ 8

Admittedly this will probably require to await the next stage of the revolution, which will involve vouchers.

Absolute nonsense. You are still missing the fundamental flaw in your own argument. We will never get to a market in that sense because the demand will always outstrip supply. The best schools will be vastly oversubscribed and there will me no incentive to enter a market to take up the slack.

You people are obsessed with this ‘market theory’ to the extent the most devoutly religious zealot would be a bit disturbed with it. Reciting the mantra ‘the market will provide’ without even having the common decency to examine the glaring flaws in your own theory smacks of desperation.

‘Vouchers’ won’ t change a damm thing, expect of increasing the number of things that fail within the education system.

@12: “Perhaps the women graduates were selected for the jobs because they had better degrees and appeared more appropriate for the jobs of teaching in comprehensives and selective all boys schools.”

It’s true that women graduates are now getting better degrees on average than men at uni but in London and the SE there is recognised feature of the graduate job market where women graduates are looking for teaching jobs because their graduate husbands have been appointed to senior posts in the private or public sectors and they want their own careers, preferably careers which make use of their degrees. A job teaching is especially convenient for families with youngish teens at school because the school holidays are likely to coincide. In some subjects, notably maths and the sciences, it is often very difficult for schools to attract any male applicants for vacant posts.

Btw there’s a vociferous lobby which claims that there are too many women teachers, especially in difficult schools with discipline problems, because more authoritative male role models are needed.

Of course, if the women graduate teachers have good degrees, that would make them even more promising candidates to start or staff free schools.

15
Perhaps you can provide the evidence for your hypothesis.

@16: “Perhaps you can provide the evidence for your hypothesis.”

Which hypothesis? My description @15 of the features of the job market for graduate teachers in London and the SE is a fair description of the realities and will likely be recognised by those with experience of the market here. Very conspicuously, maths and science teachers are very likely to be women graduates, not men, even in boys secondary schools. There wouldn’t be these laments about there being too few male teachers if what I’m saying isn’t true:

The commanding, and sometimes inspiring, old-fashioned school master is fading into history, figures revealed yesterday.

Fewer men are teaching in schools than at any time since records began and in one in ten primary schools there are no men on the staff at all.

More than two out of three teachers are now women, leading to fears that the kind of male role model embodied by the classic fictional creation Mr Chips has been lost to a generation of boys.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-506178/Goodbye-Mr-Chips-Two-teachers-women-men-shun-classroom.html

But the real point at issue here is the question of who would want to start or staff free schools? I’m suggesting that many women graduates with good degrees are well placed to do that if their husbands are in reasonably secure jobs in senior positions in the private and public sectors so the family risk of job switching is acceptable.

17
You have listed several ‘facts’ but your hypothesis about why/cause is based on good old-fashioned patriarchal thought. In fact professional women are now actively choosing not to have children. Professional couples are also more likely to reverse the traditional roles of parenting, professional couples are also the main employers of nannies and live-in help.
In summary, you are projecting your own values as an explaination.

Steveb: “In summary, you are projecting your own values as an explaination.”

That’s just total rubbish.

Based on observation and family experience, I’ve posted a fair description of how the market for teachers in London and the SE works – which in no way demeans women. As the press quote @17 shows, women do actually comprise the overwhelming majority of teachers. On the issue of who might start and staff free schools, it seems to me highly likely that well qualified women graduate teachers are well placed to do that.

I’ve a serious problem trying to understand why all that is particularly controversial.

19
I have never stated anything was contraversial, however, your explaination is good old-fashioned patriarchy, soical trends do, indeed, show that females are now getting better and more degrees than males. Social trends also indicate that professional women are now choosing career over children and the practice of changing traditional roles is associated with professional women.
Sorry Bob, observation is one thing but you cannot observe the entire country.

@20

Apart from the last sentence, that’s nonsense. I was describing how the job market for graduate teachers worked in London and the South East on the basis of observation and personal and family experience.

There is no claim to be making normative or prescriptive statements. Women graduate teachers predominate in secondary schools in the region, conspicuously so in maths and science posts where there are recognised difficulties in attracting applications from male graduates, most likely because they can find better paid jobs in the region – a similar problem to that encountered by the NHS in the south east in recruiting nursing staff.

There was no claim made about this being a national situation, although it is true that the majority of teachers are women. It is also true that some lobbies make issue over this fact because they believe that some boys, especially from from single parent families, need male role models as teachers.

Since parent+teacher promoted free schools are the nearest thing anyone has come up with to an ‘educational co-operative’ or mutual, I can’t see why anyone here is against them.

Particularly in view of the statism-isn’t-the-only-way -being-Left drift on another thread.

21
You were quite emphatic @11 about the reason why there were more female teachers, now you are back-tracking and inferring that you were only talking about London and the South East.

@23: “You were quite emphatic @11 about the reason why there were more female teachers, now you are back-tracking and inferring that you were only talking about London and the South East.”

That is just more nonsense from you – my post @11 is specific that I was referring to London and the South East. Try re-reading it. The first sentence is:

“In maintained schools in London and the South East, women graduates contribute a disproportionate number of teachers to comprehensive and, usually selective, all-boys schools.”

The quote @17 states:

“More than two out of three teachers are now women, leading to fears that the kind of male role model embodied by the classic fictional creation Mr Chips has been lost to a generation of boys.”

I was surprised to find women graduate teachers in the outstanding local selective boys schools within walking distance of where I sit which achieve better A-level results on average than Eton. It didn’t used to be like that so I looked to see what market trends had led to that outcome and to the disproportionate numbers of women graduate teachers in local comprehensives. I was concerned to understand, not to prescribe.

It seems clear that with only 24 schools open and another 70 or so about to open that most of the public have had no experience of Free Schools yet. I would say it will take at least five years before a considered public opinion can be gauged, as most of the opinions above will be based on the media utterances various noisy campaigners on both sides.

24

@11 you state that ‘This happens because ….’, sounds prescriptive to me.
And why would professional women in London and the South East be unrepresentative of the rest of the UK?

@26 Steveb: “And why would professional women in London and the South East be unrepresentative of the rest of the UK?”

I’m not claiming that professional women in London and the South East are “unrepresentative” of the rest of the UK although the more usual complaint is that London and the South East are unrepresentative of the rest of the UK – because the region is unusually affluent compared with the UK average and the region has a higher rate of economic growth compared with other UK regions. Indeed, in terms of per capita GDP, inner London boroughs taken together are one of the most affluent urban sub-regions in the EU.

It’s perhaps worth recalling that the combined populations of London and the South East are just over a quarter of the total UK population so what happens amounts to a significant chunk of the UK. My focus here on the London and the South East is simply because, as a resident, I’m more familiar with what goes on here than elsewhere.

A definitive study of Gender and the Labour Market in the South East (excl. London), albeit from 2005, can be found by googling on: Gender and the Labour Market in the South East

I’ve a problem understanding why that is relevant to you dismissing my claim that women comprise a disproportionate number of teachers in London and the South East, especially in maths and science posts, even in boys-only schools, or my suggestion that women graduates could be well-placed to start and staff Free Schools, perhaps particularly in parts of London with low attainment rates in achieving the benchmark 5 good GCSEs, including maths and English. Prospects for starting Free Schools in LEAs which already achieve high attainment rates don’t seem to be as auspicious. By national reports, over two-thirds of school teachers are women, a percentage that might well increase since women now comprise the majority of undergraduates at UK universities.

27
I’m not dismissing your claim about the facts I am questioning your hypothesis of why it is that there are more women teachers in comps and selective schools. To this extent, I believe that your explaination is based on old-fashioned patriarchal views which do not reflect recent social change. This is puzzling because you are the first to point-out that females are now doing better in higher education than males. It is then logical that institutions/business would choose candidates with better qualifications – women.

@28: “I’m not dismissing your claim about the facts I am questioning your hypothesis of why it is that there are more women teachers in comps and selective schools. To this extent, I believe that your explaination is based on old-fashioned patriarchal views which do not reflect recent social change.”

I’m really at a loss to understand what you are going on about.

I’m reflecting on the course of social change to the extent that women graduates are disproportionately represented in schools – as they manifestly are, not least because women now comprise over two-thirds of school teachers – even to the extent of taking on most maths and science posts even in boys-only schools in London and the South East.

Why on earth that statement of fact is supposed to be “patriarchial” beats me, especially since the issue is who might start and staff free schools. I was speculating that women teachers whose partners have senior posts in the private or public sectors could be in a position to do that as starting or staffing a free school is potentially a threat to the security of family incomes in the event that the free school doesn’t attract a viable enrollment.

29
Going round in circles seems to be the game here. Re-read the second paragraph @11 funny you haven’t mentioned this hypothesis again, I suppose, on reflection, you can see the problems with it, never mind that it reflects old- fashioned patriarchal views.

@30: “Re-read the second paragraph @11 funny you haven’t mentioned this hypothesis again, I suppose, on reflection, you can see the problems with it, never mind that it reflects old- fashioned patriarchal views.”

I’m not in the least embarrassed by the 2nd para @11 – it simply reflects the reality for many couples.

One way or another, the man of the family has or gets a senior position in the private or public setcor and his partner, a grad, wants a job, perhaps coming back into the labour market after the kids are old enough to look after themselves on getting home from their respective schools.

Teaching is an obvious choice, perhaps resuming a postponed career, because that offers the opportunity to apply her degree subject, the prospect of congenial graduate colleagues at work and, importantly, the school vacs are likely to conveniently match those of the siblings at school.

As a fact, women grads do predominate in teaching and, in London and the South East, many are in maths and science posts, even in all-boys schools.

Quite why that description of reality is supposedly controversial beats me and diverts attention from the suggestion that women teachers in such circumstances might well be attracted by the prospect of starting or staffing free schools, especially where local maintained schools have low attainment rates in achieving the benchmark target of 5 good GCSEs, including maths and English, perhaps because of entrenched discipline problems.

If you choose to label that “patriarchial”, so be it. But as that labelling doesn’t alter the substance of the analysis a jot, just what does it contribute to the issue of who might start or staff free schools?

31
You have missed the point, my description of patriarchal refers to your views, not the choices made by professional women/couples.
You also assume that, on average, all men who have qualifications relating to professional jobs can earn more than women teachers. Whilst I agree that many well paid professional, management, jobs are taken by men, you cannot assume that all of those men are married to women with professional qualifications, never mind teaching qualifications.
There are so many variables, you cannot make assumptions based on observation, less so when those observations are clouded by your own prejudices and values.

@31 Moreover you shouldn’t assume that just because hubby has a well paid job that wifey can take the risk of opening and running a free school. You can guarantee that they’ll be living within their means (perhaps paying through the nose for their own kids private schooling) and not say accumulating a large surplus of cash with which to use for initial start up costs.

@32

I’ve ceased to take your comments seriously, not least since the substantive issue is who might start or staff free schools and because I suspect that I’m a great deal more familiar with the functioning of the jobs markets in London and the South East than you are.

Free Schools? Let’s face it, one day we’ll get a real Labour government and all of those will be abolished.