This blog has never been happy about this idea. It does not mean that it is a bad idea, but it is certainly a bad idea to introduce what amounts to an ideological opportunity to sharp elbowed parents, at a time when money is short even to keep mainstream schools in proper repair. It is also a concept at variance with the philosophy of the Tory Party and for that matter the Big Society. This is because, for reasons which defy rational explanation, these schools are to be set up with taxpayer’s money. Such a proposition is unsaleable as fair to those whose school budgets are cut while these schemes gain approval.
All would be put right if, like in Sweden and America, the parent groups were required themselves to find and raise the money to buy, build and equip the schools. The state, if such schools passed the test of being up to standard, would then pay the standard per head, pupil fee. That may, so long as excessive over provision was refused, introduce better standards in education and allow specialisation where called for. It would allow the private sector to become involved in provision, which would help bridge the gap in outcomes between the two education sectors, still yawning.
Whether the state pays itself an annual fee to educate each pupil or pays some other organisation to do the same thing, perhaps better or maybe worse, is a practical not ideological question. For the state to take its own money away from its own provision and give it to third parties, while depriving itself of needed resources is just wrong and very wrong when funds are short.
It is a little something I must do more research into, i appreciate you for the post.