by Rebecca Thomas
Misdirection in policy-making is rarely accidental. Governments often plan it meticulously, laying the groundwork long before public awareness catches up.
If we look closely at the UK’s experience with 'charter-style' academies, it becomes clear that governments don’t just roll out these changes overnight. They are part of a calculated, long-term strategy designed to shift the structure of public education without raising too many alarms—until it's too late.
Recent research, notably "The Free Schools Experiment" (August 2024), corroborates these concerns. The full report is available as a PDF below.
Competition Over Collaboration
The report highlights the complexities that go into shifting a public education system into a business model. Below are some key insights into what the report noted:
Government’s Focus on Competition: The introduction of 'free schools' (charter-style schools) was framed as a way to increase competition in the education system. The Department for Education (DfE) anticipated that new free schools would force existing schools to compete for students, which could lead to closures if these schools did not adapt quickly enough. The policy rationale included statements like, "If [the neighbouring school] does not innovate to improve their attractiveness to pupils, their long-term viability could be called into question" (DfE 2012), indicating a direct link between the pressure to improve and the threat of closure.
Forced 'Academisation' as a Consequence: The report also points out that some schools, particularly in disadvantaged areas, or those already underperforming, faced increased challenges after the opening of a free school nearby. These schools often experienced student loss and funding cuts, leading to viability concerns. The closure of such schools often led to their conversion into academies; a process that appears aligned with government strategies to overhaul failing schools through private or semi-private management models.
Business-like Approach and Market Language: The language of competition and market dynamics is prevalent throughout the report. It discusses how schools were forced to compete for students, often engaging in marketing campaigns to attract more favourable student demographics. This market-driven approach tends to prioritise external metrics (like Ofsted grades and student recruitment) over direct improvements in teaching quality. Schools often engaged in socially selective competition, which favoured schools that appealed to middle-class, high-achieving students.
Planned Market Disruption: The government's impact assessments predicted that free schools would destabilise neighbouring schools, especially in areas where there were already surplus places. Despite recognising these risks, the government justified this disruption by arguing it would "force schools to up their game." However, the reality was often the reverse, where schools in more disadvantaged areas lost resources and students, leading to further inequalities and eventual 'academisation'. In total the report suggests that more schools were forced into becoming academies because of failure or external pressures, rather than opting to become free schools voluntarily.
How can David Seymour claim to the public: “The unions aren’t afraid that charter schools will fail, they’re petrified they’ll succeed." when there is so much evidence to the contrary?
Maybe he needs to do some more homework. Or, maybe the term 'petrified' they will succeed is apt - because we know how it will crush our current system and perpetuate disparities.
The signs we need to pay attention to
The changes in the UK weren't spontaneous but part of a coordinated plan to introduce business-like competition into education. The danger for us lies in not recognising these shifts until it's too late.
The signs:
#1 Introducing a charter schools' bill: The most explicit move. A charter schools bill lays the foundation for opening education up to private interests, and once passed, it’s hard to reverse the tide.
#2 Standardising and centralising school assessments: When the government pushes for uniform assessments, it's usually sold as a measure to 'raise standards'. However, this tactic enables easier comparisons between schools, which is crucial for creating a competitive marketplace. Schools can now be ranked, pitted against one another, and marked as 'underperforming.'
#3 Making the Board of Trustees accountable for achievement and attendance in place of student wellbeing and rights: By shifting accountability away from student wellbeing and focusing solely on measurable outcomes like achievement and attendance, the government redefines success in narrow terms. This can open the door to a market-based approach, where schools must 'prove' their worth through quantitative measures, ignoring the broader purpose of education.
#4 Enforcing a strict curriculum (at haste) after creating a (false) public crisis: In order to 'mark' a school as failing you have to measure them by the same means - right? Creating a uniform curriculum, enforced quickly, ensures all schools are compared by the same metrics. Once schools are labelled as 'failing,' it becomes easier to justify further intervention—such as converting them into charter schools or academies.
This standardisation aligns with the government’s objective to enforce measurable outcomes across schools, which is a key feature of market-based reforms like free and charter schools.
Seymour is already saying that charter schools who don't meet their targets will be shut down, insisting on competition over pedagogic improvement we know doesn't end well.
Does his haste to punish 'failing charter schools' also indicate that state schools who also don't meet their targets will get 'converted' into charter schools because they too have 'failed'?
Educators' narrative
The narrative we create must focus on the values that matter most—equity, collaboration, and the wellbeing of every child, rather than competition and market-driven outcomes.
We need to emphasise that education is about nurturing potential, fostering critical thinking, and preparing students for a world that values empathy and innovation, not just data points or profits.
The public must understand that the reforms being proposed, which mimic the UK's charter-style schools, will deepen inequalities, strip away the heart of our public education, and benefit only a select few. The UK experiment has shown us the dangers:
Schools in disadvantaged areas lost resources and students, widening the gap between rich and poor.
The focus shifted from quality teaching to marketing and competition, prioritising image over substance.
Local community control was eroded, replaced by centralised management often disconnected from local needs.
The promise of innovation largely resulted in superficial changes rather than meaningful educational improvements.
By highlighting these realities, we can help shift the public's perspective away from the politicians' polished promises and attack on unions and educators, towards a future where education remains a public good, not a private commodity.
Those communities thinking of joining the 75 applicants wanting to become Charter Schools next year must ask:
Do we want a system where schools compete for students like businesses compete for customers?
Are we willing to sacrifice the inclusive nature of public education for a model that may leave many behind?
How can we ensure that all schools have the resources they need, rather than creating a system of winners and losers?
Our voice, backed by evidence from the UK, must become the cry to protect our schools from becoming business ventures.
Let us not be misdirected by promises of choice and innovation that mask a deeper agenda of privatisation.
Instead, let's work together to strengthen our public education system, ensuring it remains a pathway to opportunity for all.
(This post follows up on "Are we being misdirected? The hidden agenda behind NZ's education reforms and the threat of charter schools." )
Comments