‘Who owns our schools?’ An analysis of the governance of free schools in England

Higham, Rob

doi:10.1177/1741143214522203

Cited by 17 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(28 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our survey also revealed significant differences between those that are stand-alone -many of which risked remaining quite isolated -and those that are part of academy chains, with the former being notably more innovative. If as expected new waves of free schools are driven especially by pre-existing academy chains' plans to expand into new areas (Higham, 2014b), extrapolation would suggest that innovation would continue to be constrained by the policies of those chains.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While extant research has touched on this issue indirectly through considering critically the democratic credentials of free school governance, in particular the way that powerful groups can mould state education in their own interests (Hatcher, 2011;Higham, 2014b), only one study has hitherto examined what free schools actually do in respect of innovation. In 2014, the government's Department for Education published its own assessment (Cirin, 2014), which presented a very positive picture, endorsed by the Education Minister, of how different and innovative was the first set of free schools that had opened by the 2013/14 academic year.…”

Section: Innovation In Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet little is known about actual practices that have been introduced in these schools, and whether they differ substantially from those found in other schools. The few studies of free schools that have been conducted are concerned with types of free schools' proposers and providers (Higham 2014a;Walford 2014a;Walford 2014b), governance of the free schools (Hatcher 2011;Higham 2014b), the policy and politics of free schools analysed from a comparative perspective (Wiborg, 2015;Hatcher 2011), and selective access to free schools (Morris 2014;Green et al 2015;Gorard 2016). Hypotheses about the effects of free schools on pupils' educational and other achievements will be evaluated when pupils complete their trajectories through school life.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Wiborg¹,

Green²,

Taylor‐Gooby

et al. 2017

J. Soc. Pol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Innovation In Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Wiborg¹,

Green²,

Taylor‐Gooby

et al. 2017

J. Soc. Pol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Higham (, p. 417) quotes John Coles, former Director General of Schools at the DfE, as asking at a British Educational Leadership and Administration Society (Belmas) seminar in London in 2013, ‘who cares who runs schools?’ In the 1970s the question had been ‘who should control our schools?’ (Glatter, ), thereby encapsulating the profound shift in educational governance that has occurred in this period. The consequences of all this we do not know, though it is a likely bet that many of these will be unintended.…”

Section: Summary Of the 2010smentioning

confidence: 99%

From accountability to digital data: The rise and rise of educational governance

Watson

2018

Review of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research interest in educational governance has increased in recent years with the rise to prominence of transnational organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the importance attached to international comparison of educational systems. However, rarely do educational researchers consider the historical antecedents that have attended these developments. Yet to more fully appreciate where we are now it is necessary to examine the national and global events that have shaped the current policy context. This paper presents a review of educational governance in the UK from the 1970s seeing in this a trajectory from the emergence of accountability to today's overriding concern with digital data. In doing this, the paper aims to go beyond providing a historical account, rather its purpose is to shed light on educational change; and further, to analyse the contribution of educational research to an understanding of events as they have unfolded over the past five decades. While it is necessarily rooted within the particular historical context of the UK it can be read as an analysis of the factors influencing educational change in the context of globalised policy spaces more broadly. A recurrent theme is the appearance of the 'unanticipated consequence', one of the most important issues the social sciences has to contend with. Thus, a tentative theory of ironic reversal as a source of policy failure emerges that is not only of relevance to educational policy but also of wider significance.

show abstract

“…This tendering process for contracts to become a DfE‐accredited provider is part of the neoliberal blurring of boundaries (Ball, : 83) and distinctions between the state, edu‐businesses, and third‐sector not‐for‐profit research‐based organisations. Such cross‐sectoral organisations are able to ‘face both ways’ (Newman and Clarke, 2009: 93 in Higham, : 417) —that is, operate as socially responsible philanthropic research‐based organisations and as profitable edu‐businesses at the same time. Reception baseline assessment encouraged hybrid, cross‐sectoral organisations that spanned educational research, policy and business interests to participate in controversial policy initiatives with the aim ‘of trying things out, getting things done, changing things, and avoiding established public sector lobbies and interests, in an attempt to “routinise innovation” and incubate creative possibilities’ (Ball, : 105).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Primary schools and network governance: A policy analysis of reception baseline assessment

Roberts-Holmes

Bradbury

2017

British Educational Res J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Primary school reception baseline assessment was designed to produce a single ‘baseline’ data figure on the basis of which young children's progress across primary school could be measured and accounted for. This paper suggests that within the context of punitive performativity, head teachers might be considered ‘irresponsible’ if not engaging with the new accountability measure in its voluntary year. Using DfE‐accredited baseline assessment providers blurred the distinctions between not‐for‐profit social enterprises, digital policy innovation labs, edu‐business, and the state. It is argued that through a process of networked governance, these cross‐sectoral organisations successfully enticed some primary schools with the ‘moral economy’ of using baseline assessment. It is argued that baseline's simplistic reductionism allowed for the economisation of early years education assessment and for its commercialisation of comparison. This paper reports on a sample of five head teachers, taken from a much larger study that used a mixed‐methods approach involving a nationwide survey (n=1131) and in‐depth interviews with reception staff and head teachers in five geographically disparate primary schools. Baseline assessment was ‘withdrawn’ by the DfE in April 2016, quite possibly because of campaigns by early years organisations, the government's own report showing that the three separate baseline datasets were incompatible, and national research funded by the teachers’ unions, a small part of which is reported upon here.

show abstract

‘Who owns our schools?’ An analysis of the governance of free schools in England

Cited by 17 publications

References 23 publications

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

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

From accountability to digital data: The rise and rise of educational governance

Primary schools and network governance: A policy analysis of reception baseline assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About