AITI’ILA(’lC)NES “IYRSIiO.’AS.

When first introducing Free Schools in England, policymakers outlined a number of key objectives that they believed the initiative would fulfil. These included: improving standards through increased competition, the provision of additional choice for parents and a focus on extending diversity within the system in order to help provide this choice (The Conservative Party, 2010; Cameron, 2011; Gove, 2011). My findings indicate that from the perspectives of the parents involved in this part of the study, these policy aims, to some extent are being addressed. They also suggest, however, that the Free Schools policy should not be examined purely in isolation, but can actually be understood more clearly when considered alongside wider developments in education policy that have occurred since 2010.

7.3.1.1 Choice

A central rationale for the Free Schools policy was the extension of choice to parents (Gove, 2011). Since the 1988 ERA the development of choice policies has played an important role in English education policy (see Chapter 2). This has primarily involved the introduction of different forms of diversity within existing schools (e.g. specialist schools) or the devolution of financial and managerial resources (Whitty et al., 1998) to encourage schools to become more responsive to parental demand. The Free Schools policy continues both of these features but significantly also introduces new schools in to the market as well. For the parents involved in this study, the Free School did provide an additional choice, one that had obviously not been there prior to the school’s opening. However, this ‘choice’ was viewed in different ways depending on the routes that parents had taken to gaining a place. For the majority of parents from the interview stage, the ‘active choosers’, a Free School was viewed as a positive option and was stated by all of these parents as the first (and in some cases, only) preference when applying. These parents were clearly successful in being allocated a place at their preferred school but their responses suggest that they very much believed that it was fulfilling a demand that they had. In comparison, the ‘reluctant choosers’ reported how in the first instance, the Free School was not necessarily a serious choice, and was either not mentioned as a preference when completing the application process or was noted as the third out of three stated preferences. Importantly though the Free School still represented a ‘choice’ to some degree, and was still viewed as preferable to some other local options. Nevertheless, the new school being perceived as the ‘least worst’ option is unlikely to be what the

171

government had in mind when suggesting that the Free Schools policy would give parents greater choice.

The findings from the small ‘initiators’ group are also important in extending our understanding of how the choice agenda is operating in relation to Free Schools. This group, existing of parents who were also involved in the set-up of a new school, point towards an interesting dual consumer-provider role. Not only were these parents instrumental in steering the development of the Free School, they had also made a conscious decision that this school would be the one that their child would attend. As such, they did not seriously consider others, particularly once their commitment to being involved in the school’s set-up was cemented. Allowing parents to be involved in the provision of education formed part of the coalition government’s ‘Big Society’ agenda, “designed to empower communities to come together to address local issues” (The Conservative Party, 2010, p. 38). In this sense, the Free Schools policy encourages parents to take on additional responsibility, not just in terms of making the ‘right’ choice for their child’s school but also in playing some role in the provision of this schooling.

Higham (2014) has shown though, that parental willingness to set-up a school is frequently limited by the demographics of those proposing the new schools or an apparent lack of conformity with the government’s vision of what a Free School should be like. This reminds of us the constraints that exist within the policy and the potential tensions between parental demand and state control. Only a small proportion of Free School proposers are parent groups (Garner, 2014) and this is reflected in the small group of ‘initiators’ within this study. Nevertheless, this blurring of the consumer/provider division is an interesting finding and one that has not been specifically highlighted before. It appears to represent both a personal and collective interest in education yet frequently operates within a very localised context. The parent proposers report a sense of responsibility for their children and also often an interest in the schooling of others that they know or who live nearby, but there is no incentive for them to be interested in the education of those outside of this network and from the wider community. Parent DF’s view that “It’s [nearby town’s] problem, for want of a better word, to deal with how they educate their kids” summarises this effectively. The government discourse of responsibilisation and competition (Bowe et al., 1994) tends to emerge, adopted by parents as a way of explaining and justifying their decisions. It highlights a shift from perceptions of

172

education provision being the responsibility of the state or LA to the involvement of parents or other stakeholders. In including some though, questions arise about who is being excluded.

7.3.1.2 Diversity

The Free Schools policy was very clearly not just introduced to address demand-side issues though. The initiative also sees the development of the supply-side through the opening of new schools and a commitment to extending diversity within the system. Policymakers argued that this in turn would encourage further choice and competition in the market (Gove, 2010; 2011). The findings in this study show how the new schools were viewed by parents in their initial years, and particularly how they were frequently perceived as offering ‘something different.’ An interest in a ‘new or different kind of education’ was reported by a number of parents in the questionnaire and the language of comparison pervaded through many of the interviews. These comparisons clearly echoed some of the policy announcements linked to the Free Schools, and continue to develop a theme of not just difference, but of superiority too.

These schools offer small class sizes, tougher discipline, longer days and higher standards. They give parents more choice. And they force existing schools to raise their game.

(DfE, 2011b) The perceived distinctiveness of the Free Schools was used by parents as a way of situating the schools firmly within a competitive marketplace. Those involved in setting-up the school had a clear vision that it would operate more in line with private or selective models than other state-funded options in their local area. The ‘active choosers’ present a different perspective on the same phenomenon, reporting how their interest in the ‘difference’ that the Free School would offer was important in influencing their choice. These perceived differences were not always necessarily used to inform the choice of the school but sometimes seemed to be used to justify or confirm an initial inclination towards it too.

A key argument for diversity within the system is that schools are better placed to adapt to meet the interests, aspirations and needs of their pupils and families. This was a message that many parents had heard from their chosen Free Schools and reported being convinced by. Their views were often framed in relation to their knowledge or perceptions of alternative

173

school options, and at the time of choosing schools, they felt that the Free School would be the best available choice to foster these specific learning or social needs. Gewirtz et al., (1995) use the concept of ‘child-matching’ to describe this process. The parents use a “blend of factors specific to the needs of their child” (Gewirtz et al., 1995, p. 29) to find the ‘best’ match. This goes some way to explaining why the lack of academic reputation was rarely seen as problematic and how the more tangible and apparently distinctive features of the school were foregrounded instead. Those parents who had children with minor learning difficulties or social issues, for example, foregrounded the importance of other features. These are discussed in more detail in the section below.

Without further in-depth comparative work, it is impossible to know just how ‘different’ the new schools really were (or were intending to be), or whether the reports of distinctiveness were perceptions based on how the schools had chosen to market themselves to parents. A recent government report suggested that some Free Schools reported using what they believed were innovative operational, curricular or pedagogical practices (Cirin, 2014). However, the limited number of schools included and the self-reported comparisons by just Free School head teachers means that it does not actually provide a very clear picture of the actual diversity being offered by the schools, and the extent to which it is, in reality, that different to the provision available elsewhere. The findings from Cirin (2014) and my findings, however, do provide some insight in to the direction of the so-called diversity. The features reported seem to reflect a move towards a broader state-endorsed desire for traditionalism, rigour in relation to curriculum and qualifications and extended school days (DfE, 2010; DfE, 2013; Lupton and Thomson, 2015). The Free Schools, whilst only forming a part of this shift in policy and practice, appear to be leading the way in its implementation. This is not necessarily problematic in itself although if it is being viewed as the ‘right’ or ‘best’ way, and supported as such by central government, then there is concern that it will further reinforce a hierarchy of status between schools. For schools to respond, they may choose to align themselves with this approach, calling in to question how sustainable alternative or diverse methods really are.

7.3.1.3 Standards

The final key policy objective that the Free Schools initiative intended to address was that of improving standards, particularly for those children from disadvantaged backgrounds (The Conservative Party, 2010; Gove 2011). The government argued that the introduction of Free

174

Schools would provide high quality education for those that attended them as well as boosting standards in other local competitor schools (DfE, 2011b, DfE, 2012c). The current study did not seek to examine the academic outcomes of pupils attending Free Schools, yet it is worth noting the emphasis on educational ‘quality’ that emerged from many parents’ responses. The Free School was frequently cited as the first (and often only) option but as described above, this was not informed by the prior performance of the school but by a belief that the school would provide the ‘right’ conditions for success and high quality teaching to take place. The findings have shown the important role that the school had in promoting this impression and how certain factors worked to influence parents’ views.

In relation to providing high-performing schools for those from deprived backgrounds, the findings from this part of the study give only a limited picture of the extent to which this might be the case. Some parents commented on issues linked to whether poorer families might be attracted to the school but without clearer performance measures of school quality, it is impossible to comment on whether or not the Free School could be described as high- performing in relation to other schools nearby. Individual performance was mainly discussed by parents in relation to their belief that the Free School would be able to maximise their child’s potential; for a number of parents, that did not mean that their child would be attaining the highest grades but that they would be supported in making progress. These parents reported their desire to escape the ‘exam factory’ environment of other schools where they perceived that pressures to achieve meant that children’s other interests and happiness were being neglected. At the time of opening, there was perhaps a sense that the Free Schools were indeed ‘free’ from the demands of the standards and accountability systems in place. This may alter, however, as the schools become more established and performance is reported in concretely and used for comparison.