Free schools are not the devil. They are not inherently evil. Yet I have been shocked by the ferocity with which those who oppose the concept have attacked it. Stephen Twigg has made clear that if free schools are doing a good job, they will not be closed by Labour. This is good. However, to suggest, as he did in the Guardian, that the free schools debate is a ‘distraction’ is not true. It’s not the debate that is the distraction but quite frankly the poor quality of the debate that is the distraction. Free schools could be a very effective tool to increase standards of education in our county, if done in the right way. The government is not implementing them in the right way. We should start debating how to implement a free schools policy correctly.

I grew up in Northern Ireland where the comprehensive system of education didn’t exist. Your choice was grammar schools meaning you had to do well in the 11+, or secondary education if you didn’t. Aged 10, I was really worried that I might end up at one of the two nearby secondary schools as at the time, they were both considered places for rejects (one more so than the other). Fortunately for me, I did well in my 11+ and was able to go to grammar school. However, I didn’t go to my closest grammar school, I went to the one which was about half an hour away simply because I and my parents deemed that it was the establishment that was best for me.

What’s different about that little anecdote is that at no point in that process did my parents have to worry about how close to the school they lived. I could have gone to a school in Belfast over 10 miles away if I wanted, it’s just that I didn’t. I have found it quite bizarre how in England, parents have to fuss over how close to a school they live. The geographical location of the family home is the only way they can exercise choice in determining which school their children attend. And, of course, this geographical obsession has had negative consequences.

Which came first, the nice place to live or the good school? Certainly we know that people in affluent areas are more likely to engage with their children’s education in such a way to improve standards of education in local schools and so a failing school in an affluent area is more likely to be turned around. It also seems that the converse is true; if you’ve got a good comprehensive school in a less affluent area, gradually over time, housing in that area becomes in demand pushing prices up. Affluence in the area increases and those on lower incomes are priced out of the area over time. Soon the only poor people left are those who always lived there and are too old to have children.

To put it another way, the monopoly of comprehensive education in England combined with an admissions selection system based on catchment areas is a driving factor in social segregation between the rich and poor in England. This needs to be addressed.

I’m not advocating the system of education in which I grew up, notwithstanding the higher quality of education in Northern Ireland compared to England. While I benefited greatly from it, there were as I have alluded to above, too many kids who were left behind by it. That is wrong. However, we do need to reinvigorate our education system. In 2011, 53.5% of people sitting GCSEs in schools across England achieved Grade A*-C including English and Maths. Or to put it another way, after 11 years of state provided education almost half of children are failing to achieve the most basic standard of education as measured by a qualification in which employers’ and higher education’s confidence has been falling for many years (whether or not standards are dropping).

This is not good enough.

Free schools are not the answer to this problem but they do provide one possible way (to be used in conjunction with others) of reinvigorating our education system and we should not just dismiss them out of hand. Evidence from around the world (primarily the US and Sweden) shows that free schools can be both a positive and a negative influence on the standards of education provided across the board ie not just in the free school itself but also in neighbouring schools. The key is to do it right.

For a free school policy to have any possibility of success you need three things:

First, no cap on the number of free schools.

Second, you need an effective application process. The Tories’ initial process was woefully inadequate and the current process is now so stringent that it is very much part and parcel of the problem of few free schools opening currently (only 24 opening this year and 79 approved next year); it effectively acts as a de facto cap. This is an area on which the Labour debate should focus (and which our progressive colleagues in the Lib Dems are focusing). Should free schools be allowed to be faith schools? Should we require those opening free schools to legally commit to not only providing excellent education in their own schools but also to improving education in neighbouring schools? Should we require those involved in the project to have certain skills, certain experience that are perhaps lacking in the LEA? Obviously one key point of free schools is that they are academies and to be effective as an academy, the application process should not infringe on the independence of the free school as an academy. However, beyond that, the process should be debated freely.

Third, you need strict accountability. Free schools are currently accountable to central government for their expenditure and are accountable for their standards of education to Ofsted in the same manner as all our other schools. However, if free schools were to take off in any number, is Whitehall really best placed to scrutinise schools’ expenditure in both Newcastle and Exmouth? Probably not. We need to bring local authorities or some other local scrutiny body back into the picture. After all, any free school that attempts to operate without the good will of its local authority is going to run into severe difficulties.

Twigg is right to talk about focusing on what happens in the classroom as it is clear that the two single most important factors in providing high quality education is the quality of teaching given by the teachers and also participation and support by a child’s parents or carers. However, that is not to say that the system in which the teachers and parents have to operate is not important. His criticism that free schools (and academies) reduce other schools’ funding is valid, but if you believe that the money should follow the child and not be vested in a ‘favoured institution’, it becomes a negative quality to be managed rather than the bar. I agree with and have argued for his second criticism above, and as for his third (that free schools distract from improving other schools); well that’s an argument attacking bad government rather than free schools.

The shadow education secretary is right to accept that free schools are not evil and right to focus on teaching quality. However, his attempt in the Guardian to draw a line under the debate, permitting the continued existence of effective free schools, focusing on teaching quality, and not further debating a Labour free schools policy, risks a lack of due focus on something that could be very positive.