The shortcomings of free schools

As a long-standing senior education officer*, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat government plans to convert schools into academies raise few significant concerns, provided we make sure there is a system for fair admissions and exclusions. But proposals to allow a free-for-all on starting up so-called free schools worry me deeply.

At present, schools appoint their own staff, decide how much they should be paid, make decisions about their buildings and decide their own curriculum. All schools, including the smallest primaries, are effectively autonomous bodies, managed by their head teacher, reporting to a governing body. There is a variety of local and national guidance, but, within some fairly broad parameters, schools have autonomy of operation without much constraint. There are a few limitations on complete autonomy and local authorities have only rarely removed powers from a school.

Of course, there are some areas where the local authority has a role: supporting school improvement, coordinating building programmes, planning school places, coordinating admissions and special needs and providing school transport. There is a clear logic for all these, as functions that extend beyond the school gate.

So what is it that academies can do that maintained schools cannot do? In truth, not a lot.

Academies have access to capital funding from sponsors and the government. But their funding is based on the equivalent of a local maintained school. They do have freedoms from national terms and conditions of employment and, in some respects, from the national curriculum, but both of these are marginal.

Areas of concerns

Academy buildings, while often shiny and exciting, have not always proved as transformational as had been hoped. Indeed, there is little evidence nationally that a new school building raises standards. They are nicer to learn and work in, no doubt, and, when well designed, can improve behaviour. But good design is certainly not the monopoly of academies.

The two important areas of concern are admissions and exclusions. Society has to ensure that every child and young person has a place in school. That includes the disadvantaged and disengaged, the disruptive, young offenders, children in care, those with parents on drugs or with an alcohol dependency.

The central issue to consider with admissions is how to decide whether or not to deny a family and their child a place at their preferred school. Is it distance? Faith? What other factors is it fair to include? Someone outside the school - at present the local authority - has to ensure that admissions arrangements are fair and are applied fairly, so that every child gets a suitable place. That must continue.

The same applies to exclusions. We cannot, as a society, abandon excluded children to a fate of no education, so we need to admit them to a new school or make costly alternative provision.

So, if all schools were to have 'academy-like' freedoms, the biggest issue would be making sure that every child attends school. There must be an external power to direct admissions, otherwise it is difficult to see how we could guarantee school places for all. It is hard enough now for some children and families, but if they don't have a local authority standing up for them, they will be disenfranchised from education completely. But beyond admissions and exclusions, there is nothing of central importance that an academy can do that a maintained school cannot.

Free schools are another matter. "Free" is, of course, not being used in the senses either of "without cost" or "without constraints". The constraints will be national rather than local, but they will be there. There will be rules and regulations aplenty. It will be interesting, for example, to see how regulations are framed to allow "high performing" free schools but to disallow (for example) free schools that promote (I will be euphemistic here) inappropriate values.

The problems with so-called free schools are that they are likely to deliver a lower quality education, that they will be expensive and that they will not be sustainable. And, as before, admissions and exclusions will need to be dealt with.

Quality is at risk simply because they will be small schools. Secondary schools are larger than primary schools because of economies of scale and the need for a range of teaching specialism. In a "free school" of, say, 100 pupils, there will be perhaps five teachers. That is just too small to provide subject specialists. And parents don't want their children taught science by a geography teacher.

Surplus places mean higher costs

Opening new schools without closing old schools also results in surplus places and an ever-increasing proportion of spend on buildings at the expense of teaching and learning. Small schools will always cost more per pupil than large schools. As per-pupil funding will follow the child to the free school, it will drain away from the other schools in the area.

Suppose that a free school opened with 100 pupils at a budget of £250,000, and that these pupils would have attracted £200,000 in a maintained school, there would be a gap - an extra cost or a deficit - of £50,000 somewhere in the system.And, finally, the free school will be unsustainable. When the children of the activist group of parents move on, who will take on the burden?

*The anonymous author is a long-standing senior education officer who is still in employment and wishes to remain so