Neoliberal imperatives have arguably driven education policies in England and Europe (Wilkins et al., 2019: Grimaldi et al., 2016) over the past four decades, leading to the depoliticisation (Flinders and Woods, 2015) and radical marketisation of the sector (Ball, 2021).  The creation of an education marketplace purposely fuels competition between providers, positioning parents and communities as consumers and schools are corporatised entities (Gunter, 2018). Successive British and European governments (Gunter et al., 2016) have proactively adopted dominant private sector methods and practices transforming the operations in the education system to become more like businesses; a process coined by Ball and Youdell (2007:13) as ’endogenous privatisation’.  As such, the utilisation of ‘brand’ has arguably become a distinguishing indicator which establishes positionality and thus, positions the organisation advantageously in the field.  Significantly, Simon et al. (2021) have postulated brand advantage, or positioning, in the edu-business world is crucial, securing status in what they deem as a hierarchical system of MATs.  Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs) are groups of publicly funded, independent schools (Wilkins, 2016) and are comparable to Charter Schools in the USA or Friskolor in Sweden (Simkins et al., 2019).  The more prestigious brands are privileged or positioned in the high-stakes play of school acquisition and the promotion of their brand to potential consumers or clients.  Subsequently, risk mitigation strategies are needed to maintain and gain brand market advantage, but also brand protection in the performative, marketised and choice-focused context of education (Courtney et al., 2018). 

A growing national and international distrust in the functioning of public services such as education (Wilkins and Gobby, 2022), combined with governments driven to achieve political and economic goals, determines the need for governments to perceive and manage risk to their own brand.  Disintermediation (Lubienski, 2014), where power and influence are withdrawn from the traditional meso-layer of education, has responsibilised this new private middle tier of educational leadership and governance for the risk and responsibility of the sector, and brand advantage. This has facilitated an extension of central control in new spaces, removed from local or federal government influence and controlled at a distance (Wilkins and Gobby, 2022).  The resultant hegemony of managerialism and New Public Management (NPM) (Gunter et al., 2016), and corporatisation, which has removed decision-making from representative institutions to corporately controlled entities (Gunter 2018), have transformed the management and governance practices of schools (Newman, 2001). The professionalisation of education leadership and school governance, a neoliberal political rationality and a new middle tier have signified a democratic deficit raising questions over stakeholder representation (Connolly et al., 2017) and the accountability of school governance, to be responsive to community and parental needs (Woods and Simkins, 2014).

 This research explores the relationship between MAT brand objectives, brand advantage and subsequent risk mitigation strategies employed by educational leadership in England.   Specifically, the Co-operative Academies Trust’s (CAT), sponsored by The Co-op Group, model of school governance, and the tension between democratic practices, co-operative values and brand advantage are illuminated.  Democracy is one of six values determined by the International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) a significant feature of a co-operative enterprise to which CAT is committed to.  The research explored how the CAT engaged with parents and community groups in an area of deprivation, to secure authentic decision-making partnerships based on ICA values, specifically democracy. As such, given its association with the Co-op Group brand, the CAT makes for a significant case to investigate as an alternative in the marketised context of education in England and internationally, given the Euro-prevalence of neoliberal contexts of education and interest in democratically engaging educational leadership internationally (Caravantes and Lombardo, 2024; Scuola Democratica, 2024).

This research adopted a socially critical perspective. Significantly, challenging the power dynamics within social structures, such as governance, the role of parents in governance and the type of democracy that is evidenced in this role. Furthermore, the research challenges the distribution of power and resource (Raffo et al, 2010), through voice and the lived experiences of individuals, families and communities (Boronski and Hassan, 2015). For a socially critical paradigm, the most appropriate methodological choice is a critical ethno-case study (Parker-Jenkins, 2016; Kincheloe and McLaren, 2000). The exploration of the CAT model and the engagement and role of parent stakeholders as decision-makers, or agents of consequence, within a Co-operative Academy in an area of high deprivation in England, is an instrumental case (Punch, 2014). The generalisability of the atypical produces conceptualising generalisability (Yin, 2014): new concepts as a consequence of analysis, or by developing propositions, that allow for future research and become the output of the research (Punch 2014; Bryman, 2012; Basit, 2010). The case study known as ‘City Academy’ maintains its criticality by focusing on the power relationship between the organisation and its stakeholders. Ethnographic/case study methods were employed in the triangulation of a documentary review of the organisation’s documentation (Atkinson and Coffey, 2011), specifically; the CAT website, strategic plan, governance policy, including the scheme of delegation, the Articles of Association and funding agreement, with semi-structured interviews and a focus group (Bryman, 2012) of 5 parents from the Parent Forum. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the director of the trust, the principal, the chair of governors, and 3 parent governors. Purposive sampling of those involved in semi-structured interviews provided a “typical” insight (Flick, 2020) to capture participants’ voice. However, sampling for the focus group was opportunistic. Verbatim transcription of interviews was completed (Mauthner and Doucet, 1998). Data were coded and processed using NVivo software (Jackson and Bazeley, 2019). A priori codes were initially identified from the research questions and first data readings, for example, ‘parent’, and ‘democratic events’. Subsequent emerging analytical codes were identified from more in-depth analysis, such as ‘decision-making’ or ‘deliberation’. Staffordshire University’s ethical principles and the guidelines of the British Educational Research Association (BERA) (2018) were adhered to; ethical approval was granted for the study. Bourdieu’s social field theory was further utilised to provide a second-layer analysis of the power dynamic between governing body members and parents participating in potentially democratic opportunities, formally or informally.

This research is of both national and international significance considering the Euro-prevalence of neoliberal regimes (Grimaldi et al, 2016). The greater freedom from centralisation that these regimes prescribe, and the economic and political goals of national governments, are interwoven with public perception of the success of the decentralisation of education, and are vulnerable to risk (Wilkins and Gobby, 2022). To mitigate this risk, national governments, and other regulators or government proxies, adopt ‘hard regulation’, a rationality and framework of government. This subsequently, responsibilises actors, education leaders, as risk managers and risk mitigators, constructing their own rationalities and frameworks of governance for achieving control and intervention. In the case of CAT and City Academy, significant brand objectives exist as co-operative values, social enterprise, and community regeneration as well as ambitious acquisition goals for CAT, and brand failure would be catastrophic for not only the Academy and the Trust, but also the big-name sponsor, Coop Group; therefore, brand advantage is crucial. To secure brand advantage, CAT enshrined brand objectives into legal funding contracts with the government and invested significantly in iconic, and symbolic imaginaries. The iconic Coop Group headquarters is a symbolic advertisement of the power and ambition within. This represents a metaphorical arm around the Edu-business (Simon, James, and Simon, 2021), and powerful brand expectations, to survey progress at close quarters, whilst inculcating the brand message as employees track in and out to either gatekeep or be immersed in the brand: capitalism in co-operative clothing. Further risk mitigation is evident in localised governing bodies structured to empower gatekeepers, and boundary-spanners whilst employing technologies of rational self-management (Wilkins, 2019) limiting participation to professionalised parents. Ultimately, brand advantage and protection are privileged, representing an illusion of democracy, sacrificing co-operative values of democracy in operational terms whilst privileging upward accountability over authentic parental partnership.

Ball SJ (2021) The Education Debate. 4th ed. Bristol: Policy Press. Caravantes, P. and Lombardo, E. (2024) Feminist democratic innovations in policy and politics, Policy & Politics, XX(XX): 1–23, DOI: 10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000009 Courtney SJ, McGinity R and Gunter HM (eds) (2018) Educational Leadership: Theorising professional practice in neoliberal times. Abingdon Oxon: Routledge. Flinders M and Wood M (2015) Depoliticisation, governance and the state. In: Flinders M and Wood M (eds) Tracing the Political: Depoliticisation, governance and the state. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 1–20. Grimaldi, E., Landri, P. and Serpieri, R., 2016. NPM and the reculturing of the Italian education system: The making of new fields of visibility. In New public management and the reform of education (pp. 96-110). Routledge. Gunter, H. M. (2012) Leadership and the Reform of Education. Bristol: Policy Press Gunter H (2018) The Politics of Public Education: Reform ideas and issues. Bristol: Policy Press. Gunter, H., Grimaldi, E., Hall, D., and Serpieri, R. (2016) ‘NPM and Educational Reform in Europe’, in Courtney, S., McGinity, R and Gunter, H. (eds) Educational Leadership: Theorising Professional Practice in Neoliberal Times. Oxford: Routledge. ICA (2020) What is a co-operative? International Cooperative Alliance. Available at: https://www.ica.coop/en/cooperatives/what-is-a-cooperative (accessed 7 March 2023). Lubienski C (2014) Re-making the middle: Dis-intermediation in international context. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42 (3): 423–440. Simkins T, Coldron J, Crawford M and Maxwell B (2019) Emerging schooling landscapes in England: How primary system leaders are responding to new school groupings. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 47(3): 331–348. Simon CA, James C and Simon A (2021) The growth of Multi-Academy Trusts in England: Emergent structures and the sponsorship of underperforming schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(1): 112-127. Springer S (2012) Neoliberalism as discourse: Between Foucauldian political economy and Marxian poststructuralism. Critical Discourse Studies 9(2): 133-147. Wilkins A (2016) Modernising School Governance: Corporate planning and expert handling in state education. Abingdon Oxon: Routledge. Wilkins A and Gobby B (2022) Objects and subjects of risk: a governmentality approach to education governance. Globalisation, Societies and Education. DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2022.2114073 Wilkins, A., Collet-Sabé, J., Gobby, B. and Hangartner, J., 2019. Translations of new public management: a decentred approach to school governance in four OECD countries. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 17(2), pp.147-160. Woods P and Simkins T (2014) Understanding the local: Themes and Issues in the experience of structural reform in England. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(3): 324–340.