Marmora Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MP - you know better than that. Free schools allow
> parents a greater say in their runningbut that
> does not mean that he schools will necessarily
> pander to fundamental religious views. Those that
> do will find themselves out on a limb with limited
> attendance fairly quickly.

Sorry to go back to this so early on in the thread but I have been meaning to ask Marmora Man about this. Do all parents know how to 'run' a school? Is this necessary if you already have a well-run school by professionals in their field? Or will it be a case of those parents who shout the loudest that get their voices heard? Sorry if that comes across as a naïve question but I can't imagine my mum having wanted more of a say or being able to know what's best. obviously I'm excluding things that any concerned parent would need to ask if the case arose eg quality of teaching or bullying.

> Those that deliver good and inspiring teaching,
> strong values, appropriate discipline and listen
> to the views of parents will, on the other hand,
> become successful with parents queuing to place
> their children there.

I firmly believe that we all deserve the same chance and a good standard of education (as healthcare). Sure enough I believe in individuality and rewarding hard work, effort, ability but those things can be achieved in a state school offering good standards of education to all.

Good question KT1997 - however, the fact that parents are taking action to open and manage / lead schools in areas where the local quality is perceived as poor answers, sort of, your question. Some obviously do wish to get involved and runs schools. As to whether they have the skills - time will tell.

Thanks MM, and yes, I think it does rather answer my question. I'd be loathe to send children to a school that was run by other parents and take a dim view of their experience and ability to manage education. It should be run by people suitably qualified (and where self-interest didn't play a part).

Would prefer better pay for (good) teachers and the same educational opportunities for everyone; I don't like the sound of free schools although perhaps I will be proved wrong and we'll discover that they help society (if that's the route we're heading...)

A bit like healthcare (in my personal experience), the public sector has had to pick up the pieces when the private sector fails. I hate nanny state and unnecessary government intervention but where health and education are concerned, I am all for the state to provide this.

KT1997 - state provision sounds fine in principle. All effort and focus on the output, none on competition and profit.

In practice state providers fall foul of the lifecycle of all monopolies - and tend to be complacent, ignoring the needs and desires of those they are designed to serve and becoming instead self regarding entities the principle purpose of which is perpetuate the existing, cosy, culture and funding arrangements for the benefit of the organisation rather than the end users, (patients, parents or children in this case).

Competition destroys monopolies and makes all players sharpen up their act.

As an example - outside of health or education look at Merseyside Fire Brigade where an, almost, unique revolution took place within a public sector organisation. Look also at the response from the Fire Brigade Union and other Fire Brigades.

What is the outcome you seek from a fire brigade? Putting out fires?

The head of Merseyside looked at it in a different way - he suggested the need was to reduce the incidence of fires. This meant focussing on fire prevention, which led to a 35% decrease in the number of fires the brigade had to attend, which in turn meant it was possible to reduce staffing levels, the number of appliances and costs. The head of Merseyside was fought almost every step of the way by the union seeking to "protect the jobs"; other Fire Brigades have been very reluctant to follow his example because, firstly, the tendency toward inertia and secondly a reluctance to confront the unions.

Now look at education and health. Both could do with the sort of revolution the head of Merseyside Fire Brigade initiated. Yet the Local Education Authorities and teacher's unions, along with the BMA, RCN, NMC, GMC, Unison and a bunch of other acronyms all oppose change which will / could / should improve care for patients and teaching for children, because change will affect their members status, pay and conditions.

Hospitals and schools do not exist for the staff within them - they exist to provide care and to teach. I do not wish good healthcare staff to be poorly paid, nor do I wish teachers to be poorly paid. However, I do want the cosy, public sector, oligarchies to be challenged to improve the quality of services we all receive.

Totally agree with you MM, although you're talking about the impact of competition, rather than parents running the schools. Local experience in ED suggests that when parents get involved with schools, it tends to be a minority of not particularly bright bullies messing it up for everyone.

Happy with free schools, but religion should be nowhere near them.

Your such a fundamental atheist Huguenot

Edited for: apologies for the bad spelling



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2011:09:28:17:00:03 by BB100.

MM - teaching unions don't just oppose Free Schools simply because they might affect members' T&Cs. They'll give you a whole host of arguments that will detail why they think Free Schools aren't a good idea.

Whether or not you agree with those arguments is, of course, another matter

Joella Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MM - teaching unions don't just oppose Free
> Schools simply because they might affect members'
> T&Cs. They'll give you a whole host of arguments
> that will detail why they think Free Schools
> aren't a good idea.
>
> Whether or not you agree with those arguments is,
> of course, another matter

That's fine - deploy the arguments, but don't block free schools which is the crux of the union position. Union members don't have to work in them - so why the opposition? Why are they concerned about competition, I can only conclude they fear it may show them up.

Free schools should work in the short term as they benefit from the injection of capital. The real test starts when they have to work with limited funds. Personally Free schools would be a disaster in the long term and the public sector would then have to clear up the mess.

Vive la France. Religion should have no role in the provision of state services.

If Muslims or Christians can set up schools, why not scientologists, branch davidians or that bloke who keeps calculating the date of the day of judgement incorrectly. They strongly believe that they are correct.

LadyDeliah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There was a recent report on the Swedish free
> schools which showed results were worse than the
> state run schools. I'll see if I can find it
> again.


Any links to this? Or any other data from how free schools are functioning in other places, and how this might apply here. I find it hard to support or object to the concept based on pure rhetoric, without at least some provisional data.

A link

here

That one is to the Telegraph, but most papers reported the findings in similar fashion

Hmm, yes, as you say, it's really no different to any of the other newspaper write-ups. I was looking for something with a bit more academic meat.

I'm finding this paper interesting, but admittedly I've only had time to read about 1/3 of it today...
[www.nber.org]

Have mentioned previously that I find it hard to make an informed decision on the topic b/c so much of the argument is rhetorical. This is (so I'm readily educated by forumites far more erudite than I, I'm sure) 'fence sitting', and it's a bad thing, b/c in the meantime the government will empty it's coffers into free schools which will go tits-up, and there will be no money left for education.

But where's the data? Quite frankly, without anything more to go on than rhetoric, that scenario is no more or less likely than a scenario in which the free school plan is wildly successful in its stated attempt to narrow the education gap, leaving extra money available for education.

I remain undecided, but I'm willing to be swayed either way, just not with rhetoric alone!

BTW, the Swedish study, as far as I understand, did not appear to show that free schools performed worse. Rather it showed that free schools had a "moderately positive" effect on academic performance, but that this effect was as yet unable to reach its target of transforming education for low income and migrant families in Sweden.

This might be of interest

Radio 4 - Do Schools Make A Difference?

To summarise, yes, but not much.