Holding English academy sponsors to account: local and national perspectives

Author(s):

Maija Salokangas(presenting / submitting)Jaakko Kauko(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2014

Network:

23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

23 SES 07 B, Globalization, Privatizations and Neo-Liberal Reforms in Education (Part 2)

Paper Session: continued from 23 SES 07 B

Time:

2014-09-03

17:15-18:45

Room:

B332 Sala de Aulas

Chair:

Peter Kelly

Contribution

This research focuses on the implications of what Hatcher (2006) calls the re-agenting of a school system, and more specifically the accountability mechanisms in place for English academy school sponsors. England has been at the forefront of market-based reforms in Europe, and the academy movement particularly has been held as an example of the blurred lines between public and private education provision (Ball & Junemann 2012). Academies were originally introduced in the year 2000 as a remedy to tackle educational underperformance in urban areas. Since then the scope and the nature of the programme has changed significantly resulting in the rapid growth of the programme, and an educational landscape in which over 3600 primary and secondary schools operate under academy status (DfE, 2014). Characteristic to academies is that they are publicly funded but may be managed by varied types of organisations and individuals including charitable sponsors. Academies are also associated with considerable autonomy regarding curriculum, teaching pay and conditions, and strategic planning.

The expansion of the academies programme has increased the number of sponsors running academies and further increased the number and spread of multi-academy sponsors. Not all academies are tied to sponsorship agreements, however, by January 2014 a total of 1000 academies were in a sponsoring relationship with a charitable sponsor (DfE, 2014). The expansion of chains is one of the distinctive features of the sponsored academy movement, and a development the advocates of the movement have cherished (O’Shaughnaessy, 2012; Gilbert et al, 2013, Adonis, 2012). As such, and more broadly, in the face of increasing privatisation of public education these schools can be viewed as an embodiment of new governance logic. This new way of governance dismantles hierarchical and central ways of governing, enhances the role of data, and blurs the boundaries of public and private sphere (Ozga, 2012).

Due to their autonomous status, concerns have been raised regarding the accountability structures under which the academy sponsors operate (Glatter, 2012). The accountability question of academies contributes to the longer trend of the radically diminishing importance of English local authorities in relation to education and in the wake of managerial techniques (Ball, 2013).

This research set out to examine the implications of such developments at local and national levels, with a specific focus on the ways in which and to whom the academy sponsors are held accountable. Allen and Mintrom (2010) have examined the concept of accountability in educational governance in relation to the concept of responsibility. This provides a helpful lens through which to examine governance in sponsored academies, as questions regarding sponsors’ motives, finances, educational interests and ideals have been widely raised in academic as well as in wider public discourses (Benn, 2012; Ball & Junemann, 2012). Therefore, in this paper the concept of accountability is approached in relation to, firstly, notions of corporate transparency (das Neves & Vaccaro 2013) and secondly moral responsibility (Smith 2012). As such the paper is set out to examine: firstly the extent to which, and to whom academy sponsors are transparent in their decision-making, and their position within the current accountability structures.

Studying the implications of the English reforms may also cast light on market-based reforms more broadly in Europe and beyond. This is because academies may be located in the wider global independent state-funded school movement with Swedish free schools, charter schools in the US and Canada, and Colombian concessions schools (LaRocqua, 2009; Meyland-Smith & Evans, 2009), all of which have gained momentum in the past decades. Therefore, albeit located in the English context, the findings of this research resonate with developments elsewhere in Europe and beyond.

Method

The research draws from two streams of data sets including an ethnographic case study conducted in an academy school managed by a multi-academy sponsor, as well as interviews with key national policymakers and officials. The case study was conducted in the course of two years in 2010-2012, during which the researcher was embedded in the academy, observing the interactions between local actors in classrooms, corridors and staffroom, attending meetings and assemblies as they happened and by interviewing a range of stakeholders such as teachers, senior leaders, local governors and sponsor representatives. This stream of research focussed on the implications of the academies policy within the case study academy, with a specific focus on the relationships between the academy and the sponsor, and the local authority. The policymaker interviews were conducted in year 2013 and focused on the academies policy as part of the changes in the dynamics of national policymaking and how this changed the relations as well as the steering capacity of the central governance. Notions of sponsor accountability were prevalent throughout both data sets, as both national and local actors expressed their views and experiences of the existing framework for sponsor accountability. The data analysis was conducted in two stages. Firstly the case study data and the policymaker interview data were analysed separately in order to gain a comprehensive view of these different data sets. At the second stage of analysis the case study data and the interview data was combined and analysed thematically, utilising the conceptualisation of accountability, organisational transparency and moral responsibility.

Expected Outcomes

Although the analysis is ongoing, the initial findings of the research have unfolded. These emerging findings suggest that both national and local actors view the existing academy sponsor accountability structures and mechanisms as insufficient. The case study data paints an image of a heavily centralized sponsoring organization in which the sponsor conducted much of the academy-related strategic planning and key decision-making. Consequently, much of these sponsor-level decisions took place behind closed doors, and were inadequately reported to the local stakeholders. Also the national policymakers recognised a longer trend of centralization in which the academies further supported the decline of local authorities. Despite the centralization, concerns were raised whether the Department for Education has the capacity to have control over academies. The national policy makers were somewhat supportive for the academisation process, but were rather concerned regarding the almost non-existing accountability. This was evident at the local level as stakeholders, such as the teaching staff and the local governors, reported of limited transparency regarding, for example, the academy senior staff appointment procedures, local governing body membership, the academy finances as well as staff career progression and pay structures. As such, the case study and the national policymakers’ interviews portray a system in which the accountability structures are forming to say the least. In the final paper we expect to present a deeper analysis regarding accountability within such landscape of new governance, in which varied local actors enjoy increased autonomy; relevant for many European contexts in making.

References

Adonis, A. (2012) Education, education, education, reforming England’s schools. London: Biteback Publishing. Allen, A. & Mintrom, M. (2010) Responsibility and school governance, Educational Policy, 24(3), pp. 439-464. Ball, S. J., 2013. The Education Debate. 2 ed. Bristol: Policy Press. Ball, S. & Junemann, C. (2012) Networks, new governance and education, Bristol: The Policy Press. Benn, M., (2012) School wars: the battle for Britain’s education. Verso, London. das Neves, J., & Vaccaro, A. (2013) Corporate transparency: A perspective from Thomas Aquinas’ summa theologiae, Journal of business ethics, 1-10. DfE [Department for Education] (2014) All open academies Available from: http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/typesofschools/academies/open/b00208569/open-academies Accessed: 30th January 2014 DfE [Department for Education] (2013) Academies Annual Report. Academic Year: 2011/12. London: HMSO. Gilbert, C., Husbands, C., Wigdortz, B. & Francis, B. (2013) Unleashing greatness, getting the best from an academised system, The report of Academies Commission, RSA. Glatter, R. (2012) Persistant preoccupations: the rise and rise of school autonomy and accountability in England, Educational Management Administration & Leadership 40(5), pp. 559-575. Hatcher, R.(2006) Privatisation and Sponsorship: The re-agenting of the school system in England. Journal of Education Policy, 21(5) pp. 599-619. Hill, R. Dunford, J., Parish, N., Rea, S., & Sandals, L. (2012) The growth of academy chains: implications for leaders and leadership, Nottingham: National College for School Leadership. Available at http://www.thegovernor.org.uk/freedownloads/acadamies/the-growth-of-academy-chains.pdf [Accessed 20 June 2013] LaRocqua (2009) The practice of Public-Private partnerships pp. 71 – 87 in Chakrabarti, R. & Peterson P. (eds.) School choice international: exploring public-private partnerships. The MIT press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London England. Meyland-Smith, D., & Evans, N. (2009) A guide to school choice reforms. London: Policy Exchange. O’Shaughnaessy, J. (2012) Competition meets collaboration helping: school chains address England’s long tail of educational failure. London: Policy Exchange. Ozga, J. (2012). Knowledge stocks and flows. Data and education governance. In T. Fenwick, & L. Farrell, (Eds.) Knowledge mobilization and educational research: Politics, languages and responsibilities. London: Routledge. Smith, A. M. (2012). Attributability, Answerability, and Accountability: In Defense of a Unified Account. Ethics, 122(3), 575-589.

Author Information

Maija Salokangas (presenting / submitting)

Trinity College Dublin

School of Education

Dublin

Jaakko Kauko (presenting)

University of Helsinki

Department of Behavioural Sciences