The questionnaire data indicate that the majority of both Free School and non-Free School parents used and valued a range of information during the school choice process. On average, Free School parents reported finding 9.4 (out of 20 specified options) sources of information ‘important’ or ‘very important’ in influencing the choice of their current school. For non-Free School parents, the average was 9.9 sources. What is perhaps more interesting, however, is the types of information that parents were using and how this differed for those opting for a Free School. Table 7.3 shows the percentage of parents from each group who reported that they found each source of information either ‘important’ or ‘very important’.
Table 7.3: Percentage of parents reporting sources of information as ‘important’ or ‘very important’
Source of Information Free School parents % Non-Free School parents %
Adverts 37.5 24.9
School staff 10.3 14.8
Contacts at the school 30.1 34.9
Performance tables 47.1 66.2
Faith group/place of worship 15.4 23.9
Information from child 56.6 75.1
Other adults 75.7 83.3
Child’s primary school 50.0 67.0
Head teacher and/or governors 61.8 46.9
Local Authority 41.2 45.5
Ofsted 55.9 80.5
Child’s siblings 25.0 52.6
Open events 91.9 85.6
Other family members 16.9 38.8
Posters 41.9 27.3
Social media 16.9 15.3
Public meetings 73.5 43.5
School prospectus 89.0 75.6
School website 83.1 68.4
Overall, it is possible to see that in relation to many sources of information, there are only limited differences between the Free School and non-Free School parents. Some sources, such
156
as open events at the school were clearly valued highly by the majority of parents from both groups. On the other hand, promotion of the school via social media was reported as ‘not important’ by over 80% of both Free School and non-Free School parents.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, there were more substantial differences in the importance attached to external, independent sources of information such as performance tables and Ofsted reports. The simplest and most likely explanation for this is that for the new schools, these sources did not exist at the time when they were considering application to the Free School. In relation to the use of performance tables, 47.1% of Free School parents stated that they were important compared to 66.2% of non-Free School parents. In addition, 80.5% of non-Free School parents reported valuing Ofsted inspection reports compared to 55.9% of Free School parents. Bearing in mind that these sources of information did not exist for the Free Schools that parents were considering, it is perhaps surprising that any parents reported using them in relation to their child’s current school. There is a methodological issue here; perhaps an issue with the question means that it is not clear and parents have reported their use of information generally and for the whole choice process rather than in relation to an individual school. Whilst potentially problematic for the reliability of the results, it is felt that there is some value in the data and the comparisons that have emerged. It is also perhaps the case, that as a number of the Free Schools discussed here are sponsored by other schools or form part of multi-academy trusts, that parents did consult the available performance information for these schools in order to inform their decision to choose the Free School.
Information received directly from the school (e.g. through a school website, school prospectus, head teacher correspondence or from open events) was reported as ‘important’ or ‘very important’ by many respondents from both groups. Higher proportions of Free School parents tended to value this type of information though, possibly because they were having to use it as a substitute for the unavailable independent sources of performance data and the ‘hot’ knowledge (Ball and Vincent, 1998) that would ordinarily be available from local, social networks. Having said this, contact with other adults and parents was reported as ‘important’ or ‘very important’ by 75.7% of Free School parents, so there is still a sense that many of them were using their social networks to inform or perhaps confirm their choice of a new school. Information about schools from their own children, including siblings and other
157
family members, was substantially less frequent for Free School parents than non-Free School parents. Again, this is likely to be linked to the fact that no other family members could have attended the Free School due to its very recent introduction.
Open evenings were reported as the most popular (and probably the most frequently offered) type of open event. There were also a proportion of both Free School and non-Free School parents who attended public events during the day as well though. There is some difference in the percentage of parents who attended a private visit to the school with 27.2% of Free School parents doing this compared with just 9.0% of non-Free School parents. The data do not give us any clear idea of why this difference might exist although it is possible that the Free Schools were more likely to offer the private appointments as way of encouraging more parents to find out about the school, and as a way of promoting the ‘personalised’ approach discussed above. Also, some of the Free School parents may have wanted to have a private visit in addition to attending a public event.
Contact with head teachers and governors recurred as an influential source of information. This was particularly the case for Free School parents with 61.8% of them reporting that this as ‘important’ or ‘very important’. A number of Free School parents opted to reiterate this further via the open sections of the questionnaire. The following are indicative of wider positive comments about those running the school. There were no similar comments from non-Free School parents.
Headmaster at the time made a very good impression.
One of the key influences was the personable/approachable attitude of the Head and school staff which was a good indicator of how my child would be treated.
This is a newly set-up Free School…the school has not been tested yet but we believed in the people who set it up.
As well as appealing to the interests of parents, another respondent also commented on how the:
158
[Free School] head teacher visited primary schools in the area, selling the senior school to them.
The data suggest that headteachers, other staff and sometimes governors often played an important role in providing information about the school and transferring the positive ‘vision’ of what the school could offer. Those representing the school are described as both a source of information and a reason to choose the school. This is not necessarily exclusive to the Free School context as previous research has highlighted the influence of leadership and staff on school choice (Wespieser et al., 2015). However, it is perhaps the case that the head teacher of a brand new school must make considerable efforts to create a favourable impression of the institution in order to attract parents in the first instance and work towards building a positive reputation.