Free Schools in England: ‘Not Unlike other Schools’?

Abstract

The aim of this article is to investigate the argument that choice and competition will unleash entrepreneurial innovation in free schools. Free schools were introduced as a subset of the Academies by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition government, following the General Election in 2010. The government made it possible for non-state providers to set up their own independent, state-funded schools in order to create more choice, competition and innovation. We conclude that a higher level of substantive innovation is taking place in regards to management practices than in respect of curriculum and pedagogical practices. Innovation in curriculum and pedagogical practices is very limited. Creating a free school offer that seems to differ from other schools appears to be done through marketing and branding rather than innovation. We argue that parents, OFSTED, and the relative isolation of free schools constrain innovation from taking place.

“It’s about portraying that we are organised …” A case study looking at understanding identity changes within one Free school’s Physical Education and School Sport (PESS) programme

“…building on the national curriculum and taking the best of it", a similar expectation found in many other Free schools (Crinn, 2014). These rather vague statements allude to an uncertainty as to how to proceed with curriculum and pedagogical innovation and collectively perhaps support the contention that Free schools do not make the most of their freedoms (House of Commons Report, 2015; Wiborg et al, 2018).…”

“…Moreover, innovation has been proposed as a characteristic that would set Free schools apart from other types of school (Gove, 2011;Miller et al, 2014). However, Wiborg et al (2018) present an argument that this is not the case, analysing factors that collectively can contribute towards a school's identity. Part of the issue here starts with what is exactly meant by innovation in this context.…”

“…In addition, and relevant to the role of PESS, extracurricular and enrichment opportunities for pupils are seen by the DfE to be important. As a result of these differing interpretations Wiborg et al (2018) conclude that Free schools are not necessarily innovative, in fact they may be regressive in their identities (in the sense that tradition holds sway).…”

“…Schools in Wiborg et al's (2018) study used uniform as a form of "symbolic identity" to distinguish themselves from competitors, a notion that could be extended towards the use of PE kits. Perhaps the most significant finding for Wiborg et al (2018) has been an acknowledgement that the parental voice is important in Free schools. The authors suggest that this influence can inhibit change although an assertion that full parental impact is unknown is something that this study will remain cognisant of.…”

“…The management team at Riverside would probably argue, however, that overall, the process enables change to be enacted quickly and efficiently. Perhaps the best example of change within the PESS programme at Riverside is the initiative to introduce the teaching of First Aid within PE lessons, one finding that would counter the conclusions of Wiborg et al (2018) who doubt whether Free schools do offer curriculum innovation.…”