A radical rethink is going on about what it means to go to an educational institution, asking profound questions about what the classroom of the future should look like and the way we should learn. Given the emerging nature of massive open online courses (MOOCs), this paper is a synthesis of critical reflections, commentaries and cautionary tales from a variety of perspectives, looking at the issues facing education and considering whether traditional teaching methods have outlived their usefulness.In times when educational institutions are facing financial cuts and student debt is increasing, some argue that free university online courses will be the saviour of education, (Koller et al, 2013). Others argue that they could destroy centuries of tradition and threaten some of the world's greatest universities (Vardi, 2012).Much research focuses on the design and categorisation of MOOCs (Clark, 2013, Downes, 2010and Reich, 2013 and the role of the educator (Ferguson and Whitelock, 2014). This paper builds on the research by examining some of the phenomenal changes to technologyenhanced learning being brought about by new technologies and business. It summarises some of the key discourses about MOOCs, which continue to generate heated debates and divide opinions about their credibility, value and importance. I argue that any form of technology that drives engaging education, tailored precisely to the needs of individuals, and opens up education to those who cannot afford it, must be a viable alternative and challenge traditional academic institutions both to question what they offer and respond accordingly.

Changes to the structure of English education because of decentralisation policy, particularly since 2010, have resulted in the creation of large groupings of schools – multi-academy trusts, organisations with multi-level governance structures, set out in schemes of delegation. Although the government has demanded absolute clarity on the role and remit of each part of the structure and the relationship and reporting between them, recent research suggests that there is little clarity or consistency in the role and function of board structures, with members often confused about their roles. This study draws on data from a funded project to examine: What level of consistency there is in multi-academy trust schemes of delegation, and what evidence is there that schemes of delegation align with sensemaking models of board members? The article concludes with a discussion on what the findings imply for use of schemes of delegation as useful tools for board member sensemaking in multi-academy trusts; revealing that although they can be useful tools for sensemaking, their usage varies a great deal between boards and board members.

For guidance on citations see FAQs.

No abstract