One summer, fifty-five years ago, a new education secretary, Tony Crosland, embarked on a policy crystallised in his famous circular 10/65 of July 1965, seeking to replace the division of children at the age of 11 with comprehensive schools for all. He remarked privately to his wife Susan in more colourful terms than can be expressed here that he intended to destroy every grammar school in the country. This summer, another new education secretary, Michael Gove, has been considering the introduction of another new type of school: the ‘free’ state school. On Sunday 5 September 2010, Gove told Andrew Marr that 16 new ‘free schools’ will be set up ready to open their doors in September 2011. Alongside the new wave of academy schools permitted under the academy act of 2010 the legislation permits the creation of schools by voluntary groups and other bodies with the assistance of state funding. The model is based upon a Swedish policy which began in 1992.
Gove reported that having received over 700 applications for such schools 16 (around 2 per cent) had been approved. Opponents of the so-called free schools have been castigated. The Wall Street Journal referred to opponents of such schools being in favour of limiting such basic rights as freedom of association. Yet such criticism is clearly misguided. The freedom for individuals to set up schools is not in any sense curtailed in Britain. The issue here is whether taxpayers’ money should be diverted from the general schools budget to fund these new bodies.
The Conservative-Liberal Democrat argument is that there is something amiss with the incentive structure in comprehensive schools with poorer catchment areas. Somehow, the argument runs, there is an acceptance of low educational attainment because it is intrinsically related to the background of the children and that there is little the comprehensive school can do. As a result, staff are demotivated and feel powerless to improve pupils’ attainment. This is to take a very negative view of teachers in the state sector who strive to achieve high standards – and are, on the whole, successful, as improving year-on-year examination results would suggest.
The great challenge that state education will face in the years to come is not the motivation of its staff but a lack of resources. These new ‘free’ schools will only serve to make that situation worse. It must be the case that the start-up costs of these schools will simply reduce the funding available to the vast number of other schools. There is also a significant risk that schools would be handed over to those with a specific agenda. None of these schools can be run for profit. The incentives for setting up such schools in some cases may well be laudable but there is a risk that they will not be in every case, and it is to be hoped that selection does not return by the back door.
Also, even if there was a motivational problem caused by social deprivation, how does the mere fact that a school is run by volunteers alter the socioeconomic baseline which allegedly causes these feelings of powerlessness? If the problem is with catchment areas, then the answer must be to be more imaginative in drawing them up in a particular locality. In addition, the current situation, where those with parents with extensive social contacts are in a better position to access the professions (through the setting up of, for example, work experience), is likely to be exacerbated. Social segregation can potentially further limit equality of opportunity.
There is little or no firm evidence from the Swedish experience that the schools will make a great deal of difference to overall standards. Yet Crosland’s goal of equality of opportunity through education must still be our guiding principle. The concern is that the costs of setting up these free schools, both financial and social, is just too heavy a price to pay.