Everton Free School

billycopper · May 2, 2014

Am I right in thinking that the main purpose of this is so that we can coach young talent as and when we want from an early age without regular school, transport etc being an issue?

I think I read somewhere that ordinarily the coaches wouldn't get the kids until they'd finished school and that their concentration and energy levels might be flagging at that time of the day and that it was difficult for parents to commit to taking the kids to several coaching sessions each week. Whereas this way they could fit sessions in during the school day as often as they wanted to.

I can't imagine that we've done it solely for the community relations and I don't expect that it's a profit-making exercise but we have put a lot into it, so I can only presume that there is a footballing outcome for us.

It seems to me like another very clever and far-sighted move and I can see a lot of other clubs copying it once they see whether we get results from it. The biggest surprise for me though was that it came about during the Moyes era and that it wasn't a Martinez innovation.

Bruce Wayne · May 2, 2014

A whole lot about it on their website

http://www.evertonfreeschool.com/faq/

http://www.evertonfreeschool.com/impact/parents-2/

BlueThai · May 2, 2014

Google 'Richard Knights Everton'

Baines' left foot · May 2, 2014

This is one aspect where Everton are streets ahead of most other clubs.

Azza · May 2, 2014

It would be interesting to see a poll of Evertonians who were for or against Free Schools and if they liked the idea of an 'Everton' Free School.

Personally I think they're an awful entity.

Bruce Wayne · May 2, 2014

Azza said:
It would be interesting to see a poll of Evertonians who were for or against Free Schools and if they liked the idea of an 'Everton' Free School.

Personally I think they're an awful entity.

Why's that?

Timak · May 2, 2014

From what I understand it isn't a school for our young footballers to attend and get more coaching.

It is an "alternative education provider" who will bring in kids who are excluded from school and try and get them involved in education again.

I'm not a fan of free schools in the way the Government have set them up but agree that projects like this are useful.

Timak · May 2, 2014

Bruce Wayne said:
Why's that?

It takes school planning out of local hands and gives the power directly to the Education department who can hand schools to favoured friends (donors) who then buy in services from companies they happen to own.

davek · May 2, 2014

BlueThai said:
Google 'Richard Knights Everton'

Yes.

A completely shameful act of intimidation and terrorism carried out by the club on that man.

For those unfamiliar with the case:

http://www.newstatesman.com/business/2013/09/are-everton-fc-silencing-dissent

...and full inquiry of it by the ombudsman: http://www.theifo.co.uk/adjudications/evertonfinal.pdf

Bruce Wayne · May 2, 2014

Timak said:
It takes school planning out of local hands and gives the power directly to the Education department who can hand schools to favoured friends (donors) who then buy in services from companies they happen to own.

Is that really what happens? I thought the schools were given much more control over how they run. Isn't that local planning?

Timak · May 2, 2014

Bruce Wayne said:
Is that really what happens? I thought the schools were given much more control over how they run. Isn't that local planning?

If it is local authority controlled then they can decide where the areas of need for future schools are. e.g. There are 500 children living in this area who will need a place and only 300 places.

Free schools can set up wherever they like so you end up with overcrowded schools in some places and excess places in others.

Schools are given "freedom" in that they can set their own curriculum (which I don't disagree with), appoint unqualified teachers (which I do disagree with) and buy in services from whoever they like rather than an approved list (which is open to corruption and is already happening with schools buying in services from companies owned by the founders at vast expense).

They also don't answer to local people but only to the Education secretary.

Tree13 · May 2, 2014

Bruce Wayne said:
Is that really what happens? I thought the schools were given much more control over how they run. Isn't that local planning?

I think (correct if I'm wrong) that when Timak says "local planning" he's referring to the Local Education Authority, rather than the school itself. Some view LEAs as an unnecessary extra tier of management - I'm NOT one of those people.

The free school that has been set up in my home town has had dozens of children leave before the end of it's first year, with several enrolling at Mrs. Tree's school. There's a couple of free schools in Brighton, were I work, that are attracting fierce criticism for quietly refusing to accept any SEN children at all.

They are essentially state-funded selective schools which DON'T charge fees to the parents and are NOT subject to LEA administration or control.

dead_soft · May 2, 2014

Have to agree, here, really wish Everton hadn't got into the Free School system - it's viewed by some as an immediate extension of Everton in the Community and therefore something good.

Fee Schools are the Tory dream, which was always going to be pushed through, and having someone to add legitimacy to it in a local area, like one of the two most popular football clubs, gives it a massive boost.

And the Richard Knight stuff is very dodgy.

Tree13 · May 2, 2014

dead_soft said:
Have to agree, here, really wish Everton hadn't got into the Free School system - it's viewed by some as an immediate extension of Everton in the Community and therefore something good.

Fee Schools are the Tory dream, which was always going to be pushed through, and having someone to add legitimacy to it in a local area, like one of the two most popular football clubs, gives it a massive boost.

And the Richard Knight stuff is very dodgy.

Not going to argue the accuracy of that statement, or lack thereof, but it's also worth remembering that they were brought into being by a Labour government, and that same Labour government oversaw dozens of them springing up around the country long before the Tories came to power.

Bruce Wayne · May 2, 2014

Timak said:
If it is local authority controlled then they can decide where the areas of need for future schools are. e.g. There are 500 children living in this area who will need a place and only 300 places.

Free schools can set up wherever they like so you end up with overcrowded schools in some places and excess places in others.

Schools are given "freedom" in that they can set their own curriculum (which I don't disagree with), appoint unqualified teachers (which I do disagree with) and buy in services from whoever they like rather than an approved list (which is open to corruption and is already happening with schools buying in services from companies owned by the founders at vast expense).

They also don't answer to local people but only to the Education secretary.

How do free schools actually do in this area? A lot of what I've read about the successful Finnish schools for instance suggests that their teachers are much more highly qualified than British ones. I mean there was a thing not that long ago showing that under 40% of newly qualified maths teachers had a 2:1, and that was before you looked at the quality of the uni they graduated from, or indeed the subject of their degree. Something like 25% of maths and physics teachers don't have degrees in those topics.

Do Free Schools do better or worse than this? I'd be keen to hear any research on the matter.