Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
ESRC-FUNDED SASE. PRESENTATION TO CEREPP
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

ESRC-FUNDED SASE. PRESENTATION TO CEREPP

83
views

Published on

Presentation to the Centre for Educational Research in Equalities, Policy and Pedagogy (CEREPP), University of Roehampton.

Presentation to the Centre for Educational Research in Equalities, Policy and Pedagogy (CEREPP), University of Roehampton.

Published in: Education

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
83
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY ANDSTAKEHOLDER GOVERNANCE(SASE) (2012-2015)Dr. Andrew Wilkinsandrew.wilkins@roehampton.ac.ukTwitter: @andewilkinsBlog: http://saseproject.com/
  • 2. Policy Background1980s Thatcherism Local Management of Schools (LMS) New Public Management Governing through competition Neoliberalism (or advanced liberal governing) Active citizenship (citizens as consumers)See 1988 Education Reform Act (ERA)
  • 3. Policy Background1990/2000s Blarism Neoliberalism plus post-neoliberalgovernmentalities, e.g. ‘Third Way’, networktheory, communitarianism. Joined-up governance, co-governance ofservices (voluntary, public, private) Governing through networks – ‘policycommunities’, new ‘policy networks’.
  • 4. Policy BackgroundSchools encouraged to form...‘foundation partnerships and federations that willwork together to raise standards but also take onnew responsibilities’. Partners might include‘employers, volunteers and voluntaryorganizations’ from the private, business, voluntaryand community sectors, in order to create ‘joinedup services’ (DfES 2004).
  • 5. Policy BackgroundThe shift from government to governance – governingwithout government.Governance signifies theco-production of servicesby a plurality of actors andorganizations (governmentand non-government).
  • 6. Policy BackgroundRoll back:privatising public assets (declared to be unsustainable, tooexpensive or producer-led) and dismantling of state-ledintermediary agencies, e.g. local authorities.AND...Roll out:steering and framing governing at a distance through inspection,audit, performance indicators, league tables, target setting,public-private accountabilities, etc.
  • 7. Research Aims To explain how school ‘governance’ operates asa set of practices mediated by the actions,interests and knowledge of different actors andagencies. To explore the role of school governors inenabling strategy, providing scrutiny of direction,offering support and ensuring accountability(stakeholder governance).
  • 8. Governance Framings Impact of public, private and third sector companies (policy communities,knowledge brokers, consultants) Role of school-to-school support, LEA and new economies of scale New middle-tier arrangements (e.g. collaborative, cooperative models) Implications of soft and hard federation (e.g. MAT, Umbrella) Roles, responsibilities, beliefs and knowledge of governing bodies Impact of self-evaluation, training and auditing mechanisms
  • 9. Accountabilities Consumer (parents, students, choice, branding) Contract (competitive tendering, contracting out, efficiency) Performative (Ofsted, targets, testing) Corporate (value for money, profitability, surplus) Professional (training, self-evaluation, CPD) Moral/Ethical (student intake, inclusion, access, participation) Legal (LEA, DfE, liability, statutory duties) Network (collaboration, federation, co-governance)
  • 10. Data Sources In-depth case study material taken from 8 schools inLondon and Norfolk (documentation, interviews,participant- and direct observation, archival records). Mixture of primary and secondary schools: local authoritymaintained, free school, foundation, state boarding,converter and sponsor academy, with some schoolsoperating within Collaborative, Multi-Academy and Co-operative Trust models.
  • 11. Data CollectionParticipatingOrganizations/GroupsInterviews conducted OutstandinginterviewsMeetings observed(e.g. chairscommittee, FGB,other)Treefield Primary Academy 11 3 2Airley College 12 0 4Duncan Park High School 15 3 4Blackhill High School 9 3 5New Broadham High School 11 0 4Broadley High School 7 0 4Meadow Valley PrimarySchool10 3 3Ravenfield Academy School TBC TBC 4Other state/non-stateorganizations, LEA, clustergovernance groups6 0 4Total Anticipated total Total81 90 34
  • 12. Data CollectionOfficial schooldocuments, websitematerial, prospectus,minutes, improvementplans, achievementlevelsMediating structures,e.g. school-to-schoolpartnerships,collaboration, localauthority, MATs, co-operative, etc.Government and non-government texts, e.g.DfE, NGA, Think Tank,Ofsted, academic, thirdsector, media, etc.Observations ofmeetings, e.g. FGBand committeeInterviews withgovernors,headteachers, LAofficers and parentnon-governors
  • 13. Research Method/ology Case study approach, multiple-case design, thickdescription Inductive theorizing, interpretivist methodology, post-positivist (e.g. grounded theory) Discourse analysis (Wetherell, Potter): language associal action, framings for accounting for selves
  • 14. Research Method/ologyInterpretative policy approach (Bevir 2010), e.g. historicist,diachronic Situated agency – local reasoning, beliefs, historicistexplanation of actions and practices Contestability – change occurs contingently Contingency – norms as social constructsMoves beyond a concern only with institutions, norms andstructures to a view of governance as shaped by dilemmas,traditions and wider webs of beliefs.
  • 15. Pathways to Impact Executive summary and full report for non-academic beneficiaries: Ofsted, DfE, SSAT,NSN, NUT, NGA, schools, governors, practitioners, policy makers, brokers. Steering group (Francis, James, Critchley, James) and governors-only advisory group. International dimension: two-week trip to Stockholm, Sweden. Two national conferences: academic and non-academic. Final report to all participating schools together with dissemination event. Invited speaker at academic conferences/seminars. Book publication.

×