Secondary school expansion and a lack of school places is a problem that all London boroughs face, but the issue is acute in Lambeth. The lack of secondary schools in the borough led parents to form the country’s first Parents Promoters Foundation (PPF) in 2003. This group of parents worked hand-in-hand with Lambeth council for six years to create The Elmgreen School and benefited from political support both locally and nationally.

In Lambeth, we feel that parent-promoted schools are a step forward. The Elmgreen School is significantly placed at the heart of the local community in a meaningful way. Lambeth council remained instrumental in the creation of the school — we are responsible for setting the admissions policy, employing staff and funding while the PPF has more say in the day-to-day running.

The school was funded as part of the council’s £300 million Building Schools for the Future Programme.Research shows that when parents are actively involved in their children’s education, the children do well at school. This is why we feel parents can play a tremendously positive role beyond sitting on governing bodies, and we have reaped the rewards of the PPF in helping to create, and now run, The Elmgreen School.

One of the common misconceptions about parent-promoted schools is that they enjoy more flexibility over admissions than maintained schools – but this is not the case. The PPF has in the past been accused of creating a ‘middle-class’ oasis — however if the parents had wanted to do that they would have created an independent school. It is a state school, and bound by the School Admissions code — like any other local authority-controlled school in Lambeth. Consequently, its intake reflects the ethnically and socially mixed nature of the local community – which is what we and the PPF want.

The school was developed by the energy, ability and ambitions of parents. What the PPF brought to the education visioning process were their unlimited ambitions, largely unfettered by education experience and high expectations of the school. This enabled a clear focus on the role of parents as a genuinely equal partner in the education process. The PPF numbers approximately 350 members, who are all local parents or carers.

More than 50 per cent of Elmgreen’s governors are representative of the parental community. There is a lot of discussion and debate about a potential Conservative government changing the face of education by making it possible for parents to set up their own schools. As you can see from the example we have set in Lambeth, not only is it already possible, but it has already been done and is working.

NO

Christine Blower, General secretary of the National Union of Teachers

We are committed to parents playing a big role in children’s education. They should be active as governors, participating in parent teacher associations or volunteering in schools. That is an entirely proper role for parents. Having said that, we are not at all persuaded by the idea of parent-sponsored or parent-led schools.

All schools in an area should have a proper relationship with their local authority. The best way to run education in the locality is to have a democratic structure to which everyone can relate — parents or other members of the community. Parents do not necessarily have the expertise to set up or run a school so would have to hire in contractors, leading to further privatisation and fragmentation of the education system. We are talking about public money being given to a body that demonstrably may not have the skills to run a school.

While parents may have an interest in setting up a school for their own children, what would be the long-term future for the school? It is simply not right that public money should be given to a group of enthusiastic amateurs, motivated by what they want for their own children.

There is also the issue of planning. If you allow any group of people, in this case parents, to say “we want a school here” and give them the means to do so by providing them with public money then another school in the locality would have to close and the whole community around the school would be put in jeopardy.

Some parents are enthusiastic to get involved in campaigns to open new schools if there are not enough places in their area. In other cases it is simply that they do not like the local school and want their children to go to a different one. If they think there are issues with the schools, there is a number of ways to suggest changes through the existing structure.

Local authorities need to listen to parents and be aware of the demographics to see if they need a new school, but this requires a strategic approach from local authorities. The answer is not to allow parents to set up a school here or there and give them the money to do so; it is a piecemeal approach that will not work.

One of the claims made by people who are keen on the free schools agenda is that it ratchets up standards. There is categorically no evidence for that. Having a plethora of differently run schools does not improve standards: it is enthusiasm for local schools and involving the local community that makes schools better.

There is some evidence to show that fragmenting the landscape enhances segregation and nobody wants that. There may be some superficial attraction to parent-led schools in policy terms, but for the vast majority of people it simply isn’t relevant.