School federation governing

Abstract

This article examines the ways in which being a member of a federation governing body impacts upon the governor identities of individuals. Using an ideographic case study based upon a single academy federation, the investigation employs a framework for identity analysis to analyse qualitative in-depth interviews with members within governing organizations in the federation. The data reveal changing understandings around the term ‘governor’, the bifurcation of actual and perceived roles between the executive governing body and the advisory committees, and important insights into governor succession planning. The study concludes that future research into governor identities is important in terms of both governor role performance and the maturation and development of federation systems of school governance.

A systematic review of research into executive headship, 2001–2021

“…These include phase, level of performance, size and extent of academization. Simkins et al (2019) also note how phase influences governance structures in contexts with an EH, while Baxter and Wise (2013) and Chapman et al (2010) identify the move to a hard federation as the single biggest driver of structural change.…”

“…For instance, National College (2014a, 2014b) highlights the effective utilization of school committees while Chapman and Muijs (2013) conclude that shared governance arrangements are the most commonly adopted model in EH contexts. Similarly, Lord et al (2016) identify four principal models which are adopted in practice in these situations, comprising: EH reporting to one governing board which manages the whole network. EH reporting to a governing board of trustees for the whole trust, and governing committee for individual schools. EH reporting to multiple governing boards, representing each individual school. EH being managed by the ‘executive’ branch, for example, CEO or director. Collectively, this wide variety in approaches results in a system characterized as complex and opaque (Baxter and Wise, 2013; Courtney and Gunter, 2015; Ehren and Godfrey, 2017), with variations in contracts (Lord et al, 2016) and alternative levels of autonomy (Ehren and Perryman, 2018; Greany and Waterhouse, 2016). Meanwhile, differences in MAT arrangements add further confusion (National College, 2014a).…”

“…Collectively, this wide variety in approaches results in a system characterized as complex and opaque (Baxter and Wise, 2013;Courtney and Gunter, 2015;Ehren and Godfrey, 2017), with variations in contracts (Lord et al, 2016) and alternative levels of autonomy (Ehren and Perryman, 2018;Greany and Waterhouse, 2016). Meanwhile, differences in MAT arrangements add further confusion (National College, 2014a).…”

“…Where research into EH has featured in peer-reviewed publications it has generally summarized small scale, qualitative studies. For instance, Harris et al (2006), Hatcher (2014), Howland (2015) and Baxter and Wise (2013) all explore EH through single school case studies.…”