should Free Schools be publically funded?

Home Forum Chat Forum should Free Schools be publically funded?

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 41 total)
  • should Free Schools be publically funded?
  • Premier Icon muddydwarf
    Subscriber

    I don’t have children, so no personal interest in this.
    However, i am finding myself annoyed at the idea of what are effectively selective private schools being funded by the public purse with no effective oversight from those providing the funding.
    By all means teach your children whatever you think is a good education, just don’t expect the rest of us to fund it.

    Is this a fair idea?

    El-bent
    Member

    No it shouldn’t be funded from public money, but then again free schools are a bad idea.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    Free schools are all-ability state-funded schools set up in response to what local people say they want and need in order to improve education for children in their community.

    The DoE has an different definition to selective (all ability) private (state-funded) schools.

    Premier Icon muddydwarf
    Subscriber

    In effect though, they are selective schools with unorthodox curriculae and no oversight are they not?
    They take public funding, therefore reducing the funds available to the other schools in the area.
    Why should other schools suffer so a private group can set up a college teaching creationism for example?

    Premier Icon binners
    Subscriber

    It’s just yet another way for the Tories to funnel a higher and higher percentage of taxpayers money into democratically unaccountable private hands, while depriving public bodies (which put nanby pamby lefty crap before the rapacious pursuit of profit) of funds, and hollowing out local democracy

    And I don’t believe for one minute that this is the end of the process. Merely a step on the way to partial privatisation of the education system, with the free schools to become fully private, and income (and profit) generating

    And them we’ll have a genuine 3 tier system

    1 private schools for the rich elite (as now)
    2 publicly funded, privately run, profit making, highly selective schools
    3. Sink schools. Publicly run and totally starved of funds
    Its on the way…..

    Premier Icon Sandwich
    Subscriber

    Also schools being established where there is no need by reason of population size. They are set up so that Jemima & Sebastian don’t have to mix with the riff raff and reinforcing social division.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    Odd that they are based on that elitist Swedish system then!

    Wouldn’t worry unnecessarily, NUT says they are neither wanted nor needed so I am sure they will fizzle out soon!!!

    Why would the vast majority of excellent state schools suddenly disappear Binners?

    twosheds
    Member

    No certainly not! Neither should religious schools.

    Premier Icon binners
    Subscriber

    An elitest Swedish system that was apparently the holy grail, but had failed to deliver on it’s lofty promises

    And good state schools will disappear because the government are hell bent on creating a completely divided society, where the poor are completely marginalised, and the state is completely starved of funds, left as a barely functioning rump, then taxes can be reduced for those at the top, who will now be the only real beneficiaries through quasi-private education and healthcare

    And I don’t believe that your that naive that you don’t know that already thm

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    Oh I see. That’s nice and clear then. Nasty lot aren’t they. At least with that attitude no one will vote for them.

    (Using elitist with Sweden was a joke btw)

    ninfan
    Member

    No certainly not! Neither should religious schools.

    Really?

    about one in four current primary and middle schools, one million pupils – providing schools since about fifty years before the State had anything to do with education.

    Not really caused a huge problem, have they?

    5thElefant
    Member

    Yes. All schools should move over to the model. Religious schools should be banned though.

    bencooper
    Member

    Not really caused a huge problem, have they?

    Go to Scotland or Northern Ireland and say that.

    Religion should have no place in school apart from in religious studies lessons.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    Yes ban religious schools, why should any religious people have their needs met? Might as well ban teaching RE while we are at it. There’s that awful theology, philosophy and ethics A level that state money is used to support. It’s a travesty I tell you. Should be banned outright. Shall we start a petition. Parents evening tonight so I could get a head start….

    Premier Icon binners
    Subscriber

    Of those that bothered to vote, nowhere near a majority voted for them last time THM. And the manifesto they voted on had no mention of the quasi-privatisation of the healthcare and education systems. Quite the opposite.

    But apparently that manifesto is null and void as it’s a coalition. So don’t kid yourself that what’s being carried out now has a single shred of democratic accountability whatsoever, because it doesn’t!

    5thElefant
    Member

    I guess you want homeopathy and astrology state funded too?

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    Agreed Binners, so those nasty lot will be booted out next time for telling such porkies. Privatised education, it’s hard to believe isn’t it?

    No democratic accountability? Have they cancelled the next election then – we are not saddled with this lot for ever are we?

    ninfan
    Member

    THM, we’ll see how the ‘democratic accountability’ argument stacks up with the Lefties when Dave uses the Parliament Act to push the referendum bill through the unelected Lords 😉

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    ” referendum”? That sounds dangerously democratic to me.

    bencooper
    Member

    Yes ban religious schools, why should any religious people have their needs met? Might as well ban teaching RE while we are at it.

    Religious people do have their needs met – they’re perfectly free to set up their own churches (with generous tax relief), run Sunday schools (or whatever day they like) to teach their religion to their kids, whatever.

    If you don’t understand the difference between RE and religious observance in schools, it’s a bit pointless discussing it.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    You never know Ben, perhaps the third of the population that chose to send their kids to religious schools like the idea of some form of religious observance during the day. Terrible thought I appreciate, but there are some odd folk about, and a lot of them by all accounts. Still we can all decide that they are wrong and cut off the funding. We could impose non-religious observance instead. Sounds much better that way round doesn’t it.

    Heaven forbid (sorry) that anyone should be able to go off-curriculum and not have to pay fees for the privilege. Ministers know best after all.

    Premier Icon binners
    Subscriber

    I think the day they made it a fixed 5 year term (remember them changing the rules?), they knew full well that the path of ‘creative chaos’ (their phrase) that they were embarking on wouldn’t have the remotest hope of delivering a majority at the next election. despite the very best efforts of a comically inept and ineffective Labour Party. They knew the population wouldn’t wear it.

    Hence them setting about their task of dismantling the state with the haste and zeal of a party that had just won the biggest landslide in electoral history! All using the economic crisis as justification for a ruthlessly ideological agenda

    Read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. Written about ten years ago, it provides the blueprint for what the Tories are presently embarked on

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    You will be telling us that they have cut government spending next Binners, like Mrs Thatcher. Still given the haste, they have to do it quickly.

    Old Naomi must be shaking with rage at a fellow Canadian teaching the scots the ins and outs of currency unions and reminding them how they work. Bloody globalisation. Should have made him stay at home.

    Premier Icon scotroutes
    Subscriber

    Aye – when the Labour Party get elected the first thing they will do is go round and undo all the nasty Tory-led legislation, like all that anti-union stuff that Maggie brought in 🙄 After all, we all know that Labour are in favour of local authority schooling, don’t we?

    [img]http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/gallery/2012/10/31/1351677351888/Tony-Blair-008.jpg[/img][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/AnasSarwarMP-crop.jpg[/img]

    Premier Icon binners
    Subscriber

    They never had the slightest intention, like Thatcher, of cutting funding. It’s not about that! Never was!

    The ‘project’ is to completely reshape the model of where that funding goes! Who the beneficiaries are. Who profits.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    Going back to the OP (sorry) but doesn’t the process of a free school start with the LA in the first place? They have to identify and agree the need.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    Did Mrs T cut spending a lot then?

    So is all this ring-fencing things like health and educational a load of old bollocks then?

    Premier Icon scotroutes
    Subscriber

    muddydwarf wrote:

    In effect though, they are selective schools with unorthodox curriculae and no oversight are they not?
    They take public funding, therefore reducing the funds available to the other schools in the area.
    Why should other schools suffer so a private group can set up a college teaching creationism for example?

    You’ll be thinking of Academy Schools – as introduced by Tony Blair?

    bencooper
    Member

    You never know Ben, perhaps the third of the population that chose to send their kids to religious schools like the idea of some form of religious observance during the day.

    Those God-fearing Americans somehow manage to cope with schools without religious observance. The separation of church and state is written into the Constitution.

    aa
    Member

    Thm, you’re very good.

    The la does need to identify where there is a need for school places. It’s not able to build new schools, which is where the free school/sponsored academy game comes into play.

    Good angle tho’!

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    Unlike ours Ben. Judging by the rot that comes out of the US re religion perhaps better RE in schools would be a good thing?

    Premier Icon binners
    Subscriber

    Again THM – they are not cutting funding in these areas. What they’re doing is radically restructuring both, so that the money goes into private, not public hands!

    Back to the OP though. I think that if an MP privately educates they’re children, then they immediately become exempt from involvement in education policy, including the right to vote on it. That’d be interesting to see. I reckon the education system might look a bit different with only Dennis Skinner allowed to propose policy!

    bencooper
    Member

    Unlike ours Ben. Judging by the rot that comes out of the US re religion perhaps better RE in schools would be a good thing?

    No argument here – but again there’s a huge difference between Religious Education and Religious Observance.

    RE is teaching kids about the beliefs of others, educating them about all religions.

    RO is when the local minister comes in and gets all the kids to pray with him.

    I’ve been that kid, sitting there while all the other kids bow their heads, being made to feel different because I don’t believe in their god. It’s not especially fun. But, more importantly, it’s not the kind of thing that schools should be for – schools should be about teaching, not indoctrinating.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    Oh I see bins, I had missed that bit.

    I guess you would disqualify them from involvement and voting on the basis that they clearly have not thought about it? Should you exempt then from paying them for schooling as well or give them a tax credit to compensate for their loss of democratic power?

    – schools should be about teaching, not indoctrinating.

    so let’s ban those who want RO/take away their choices as they are obviously in the wrong then. Weirdos????

    Choice – bloody dangerous thing. They will be saying that teachers know more than ministers next?

    Premier Icon muddydwarf
    Subscriber

    Ive no problem with schools teaching differently than the National Curriculum – parents should always aim for the best education for their children as they see fit.
    However it shouldn’t be funded by the rest of us without any financial oversight or standards being set.
    Finance your own school & curriculum by all means though.

    bencooper
    Member

    so let’s ban those who want RO/take away their choices as they are obviously in the wrong then. Weirdos????

    No, just don’t state fund it. The point of state funding is to produce useful citizens, not to provide free funding for whatever the parents think their child should be taught*

    They will be saying that teachers know more than ministers next?

    I know some ministers, nice guys. One is rector of Glasgow University. Do they know more than teachers? About what subject?

    *I’m not even going to get into the whole “there’s no such thing as a Christian/Hindu/Muslim child” subject.

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    As part of the planning process for new schools, LAs must also undertake an assessment of impact of the proposal, both on other existing educational institutions locally and in terms of impact on particular groups of pupils from an equalities perspective. This is to enable the Secretary of State to meet his duties under section 9 of the Academies Act 2010 and under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/270495/academy_free_school_presumption_guidance.pdf

    Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    Define useful – does that include art, double maths, RE (even), politics (surely not)?

    I know a guy who worked in finance all his life and was a top-rated banks analyst for many years. Is not a qualified teacher, but teaches (very well by all accounts) Economics. In most schools this would not be allowed as it’s shocking.

    bencooper
    Member

    Define useful – does that include art, double maths, RE (even), politics (surely not)?

    To me, useful means able to think critically about anything – be that art, mathematics, religion or politics. Teaching kids how to think, not what to think, is the most important thing schools can do.

    Religious observance is the opposite to this. It’s about telling kids what to think, not helping them make up their own minds.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 41 total)

The topic ‘should Free Schools be publically funded?’ is closed to new replies.