Yes: James Croft, Adam Smith Institute

The Conservatives have recognised that the most promising route to raising educational standards in the UK is to expand the market. Unfortunately for the government, an unanticipated surge in the birth rate in recent years and a lack of available capital to finance development have presented particularly challenging circumstances in which to take forward its plans. In my report, I argue that the education department needs to take a much more proactive approach to encouraging existing independent schools (whose capital requirements are already met) to become free schools, and to themselves establish new free schools.

There are 58,343 unfilled places in mainstream independent schools in England, the vast proportion of them in good schools whose pupils achieve at higher levels than the national average. It has become increasingly difficult for these schools to set their fees at levels parents can afford. Bursary provision can only extend so far, so many schools end up with places to spare despite their popularity. Examples in the first tranche of applications to become free schools suggest that conversion can widen access to local people, allowing spare capacity to be filled and even extended. The government should be setting pre-approval conditions, rather than creating an obstacle course for such applicants.

My study of profit-making independent schools (proprietorial schools) reveals that the highest concentration of spare capacity among non-academically selective independent schools lies in some of the most educationally successful schools operating under the most competitive of market conditions. These schools in many ways already embody the aspiration of what many of the new free schools hope one day to become – they are, for example, 83 per cent non-selective, 99 per cent secular, and 80 per cent urban or sub-urban – and are well positioned to respond to the challenges of expansion.

While other independent schools plough their surpluses into facilities development, proprietorial schools are more likely to invest in expanding capacity. Proprietors of these schools display a keen interest in the free schools market; what is stopping them is the government’s misguided insistence that free schools should be run as trusts and operate on a not-for-profit basis – a position which has been justified by concern that the profit motive might compromise educational outcomes. My research demonstrates, however, that proprietorial schools inspected by Ofsted in 2007-10 (even those at the lower end of the fee spectrum), significantly outperformed an equivalent ‘all independent schools’ group including trust schools on all key teaching and learning-related criteria. I conclude that trust governance does not guarantee quality educational outcomes. The performance of these schools suggests rather that the need to make a profit focuses minds on raising attainment.

Given the strong performance of the majority of these schools at inspection, there is no basis for excluding them from setting up and managing free schools.

James Croft is a research fellow at the Adam Smith Institute and author of its  report, ‘Profit-making free schools’

No: Sonia Exley, Institute of Education

Instead of channelling extra money into existing deprived schools, some believe that the problem of educational quality requires new educational providers to create schools which will compete with underperforming ones.

Whether such an approach can be justified in a time of wider cuts to education and known surplus places in the school system is a matter of intense academic debate. However, beyond this there are also warnings to be heeded about the danger that educational quality may suffer, rather than benefit, where profit-making interests become involved.

First, in a highly complex system where large numbers of providers are given unprecedented autonomy, regulators may face significant difficulties seeking to ensure transparency, accountability and standards across schools.

Second, there are well-documented risks around motives and incentives when it comes to private sector profit in public services. Given a drive to maximise returns, there could be a real temptation for educational providers to cut corners rather than prioritise quality. Where this happens parents will not simply be able take their children elsewhere, as moving pupils between schools can be severely disruptive to their education. Schools may also ‘select out’ pupils who are the most difficult and expensive to teach – even with a Pupil Premium – through admissions practices or exclusions. This would have obvious implications for inequality in the school system overall.

James Croft’s report compares the performance of schools within the independent sector, but he provides no clear logic as to why this should suggest a model for state education. The report asserts that proprietorial schools also outperform state secondaries, but this is because they are fee-paying schools (regardless of how high or low their fees are) and therefore filled with socially-advantaged pupils. Schools which exclude on the basis of ability to pay cannot be described as ‘non-selective’.

The concerns I raise are unlikely to cause problems in the context of the 489 English proprietorial schools, where the pupils’ parents are assertive enough to ensure their money’s worth. On a larger scale, however, and when pupils include more vulnerable children, there could be real dangers for our education system.

Sonia Exley is a research fellow at the Institute of Education