Institute of Education and Social Science

The paper reports the findings of a short series of interviews with Additional Inspectors. These were part of a much wider project researching the developing schools ‘system’ or ‘landscape’ (Simkins et al, 2014) after nearly five years of the Coalition Government (Riddell, 2016. Interviews in maintained schools and academies and local authorities had revealed a wide range of views of the background and competence of Ofsted Inspection Teams (echoed in, for example, the Times Educational Supplement, 2014). Further discussions with one of the current Ofsted Inspection Providers (until school inspections were taken ‘in house’ with effect from September 1st, 2015), and examination of the web-based lists of additional inspectors of the two others, revealed first some disagreement with this view but second the wide range of backgrounds from which current inspectors are drawn.

The inspection provider agreed to carry a short text ‘advertising’ the wider research and requesting contact from inspectors willing to contribute to it. Thirty offers were received almost by return. Twenty semi-structured interviews were then held, of between 40 and 90 minutes each, largely by telephone, but with some face-to-face where travel was relatively easy for the author. The interviews were structured round the extent of the interviewees’ involvement in inspection and what it helped them bring to their other and wider work where they did any. This latter was then related to the themes of the wider project, including the networks of support and advice that secondary, and to a lesser extent, primary schools have been developing with the changing, and in many cases, declining direct involvement of local authorities in schools.

Within this opportunity sample, inspectors came from a wide range of backgrounds, including serving and ex-primary, secondary and special headteachers, serving and ex-LA officers and a variety of private sector roles. They were all involved in development and support work with schools, mostly in all phases, and even where serving LA officers, on an individual basis. The wider research had found diminishing, but varied, loyalty to LA provision (in some places integrated with that of Teaching School Alliances and Universities), especially at secondary level. But what was most striking here was the word-of-mouth recommendations on which these interviewees (and heads previously interviewed) reported working.

The wider implications, if these results are replicated, is the absence of singular, developed school partnership arrangements in many places, a key objective of a ‘self-improving school system’ (Hargreaves, 2012). And the informal support networks that schools have been developing will degrade or disappear over the next few years, because of the age of many of those working on a day by day contracted rate. This leaves a significant systemic development problem for a self-improving system, for which no one has prime responsibility.

This is the first chapter of my book published earlier this years about the development of the self-improving schools system in England. This chapter sets the context for considering the inequities in educational outcomes in England. The book is available here: http://www.ucl-ioe-press.com/books/schools-and-schooling/equity-trust-and-the-self-improving-schools-system/

This is chapter 4 of my book published earlier this years about the development of the self-improving schools system in England. This chapter sets out the policy framework developed by the Coalition Government 2010-15 which is continuing under the Conservative one 2015-, even with a change in Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Education. The book is available here: http://www.ucl-ioe-press.com/books/schools-and-schooling/equity-trust-and-the-self-improving-schools-system/

This is the fourth chapter of my book published earlier this years about the development of the self-improving schools system in England. This chapter sets the developing policy context for the development of a schools-led system. The book is available here: http://www.ucl-ioe-press.com/books/schools-and-schooling/equity-trust-and-the-self-improving-schools-system/

This paper considers some of the methodological problems inherent in providing authoritative critical analyses of policy-driven change in school systems, drawing on recent ongoing empirical qualitative studies (e.g. Author, 2016). Avowedly, policy making remains centralised in England but realisation has been moving away from the 'deliverology' still advocated by some (Barber, 2015) towards more decentred, locally-or school network-driven (Hargreaves, 2012) arrangements. Ball and Junemann (2012) characterise this as a 'shifting assemblage' that is inherently unstable, as arguably it has been for over twenty years. For the minority of schools – those that experience at very close hand the pressure of Ofsted inspection or intervention from a Regional Schools Commissioner-policy retains as many command and control features as ever. But for most recent change has been rapid and even 'seismic'. In particular, by a combination of strategic choice and severe budget cuts, what remained of the local authority role in local interpretation of national policy with and for schools has been disappearing, together with the discursive framework this provided for heads, governors and others, without any alternative in sight. But this is variable. From recent experience, interview data from individuals at different locations and levels of seniority in the rapidly developing schools landscape are best considered as temporary interpretations of change from different positions at the time, while both the landscape and the standpoints were themselves changing. Further, repeated discussions and follow-ups – where people had not changed role-revealed changing views and that the very act of interviewing had contributed to interviewees' own interpretations of the significance of events and their continuing roles. No one pattern is emerging anywhere; different tensions and uncertainties occur at different times. Because of this, the paper considers the design of projects that allow of more authoritative analyses of change that go beyond the expression of 'concerns' that good journalists can and do make. From the standpoint of 2016 in the second year of a new Government, the paper also considers what the agenda for such research should be, wider Pedag0gy2016 Because the well-positioned interviewees were mostly involved in shaping the new system, particularly in the second series, their reported experiences and concerns are also snapshots of the system itself as it is moving, developing and evolving. in this way illustrates the complexity of national structural change: what might appear to be a simple idea of school-led change, although with many of its implications nationally unarticulated or possibly unconceived, passes too through many minds and interpretations before its realisation can be characterised or understood. particularly at times of change, are actively constructing their own understanding and discursive knowledge of the change around the questions asked of them (Holstein and Gubrium, cited in Denzin and Lincoln, 2000) and therefore their articulation of the polity. This might not have happened without the interview.

This paper reports initial outcomes from a short series of semi-structured interviews in 2017 with senior politicians from three parties elected to two contrasting English local authorities (LAs): an urban city authority and a largely rural shire county. These were complemented by continuing interviews with senior officers and head teachers, of both academies and maintained schools, some with positions in multi-academy trusts (MATs), and critical readings of LA strategic documents.

Interviews focused on the nature of democratic authority in what is an increasingly privatised schools system in the sense that school governance and decision making have moved steadily away from the authority inherent in democratic representation of a local community towards a more technical (or technicist) conception that depends more on ‘people with the right skills, experience, qualities and capacity’ (DfE, 2017: 10). This process has been described as ‘depoliticisation’ (Ball, 2007), or even ‘destalization’ (Jessop, 2002), whereby there is little public disagreement or debate about schools’ role in achieving national objectives (for example, social mobility). And the new technologies underpinning these changes have in turn engendered new governmentalities and discursive formations focused on little except better ‘outcomes’ (Wilkins, 2016).

The principal policy in pursuit of these aims in English schools has been the process of academisation, whereby schools have been steadily removed from the purview of LAs, however etiolated, to be funded directly by central government on the basis of a contract with the minister. More recently, schools have been more progressively organised into Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs) – voluntarily or involuntarily – in processes overseen by Regional Schools Commissioners, central government officials also responsible directly to the minister (Riddell, 2016).

Politicians interviewed varied in their support for academisation - not always in ways that might be expected to reflect party affiliation – but all felt that schools had an important contribution to make to the realisation of their strategic aims, from economic development to lifelong learning. In addition, they were interested in what happened to the children of their constituents and all felt local authorities needed to engage with schools, reporting varying success in doing so. All acknowledged the difficulties inherent in a system increasingly organised de facto to exclude them, especially with MATs with wider regional or national roles with the attendant more remote offices and boards. According to some politicians (and officers), responses from MATs varied but having an elected mayor in the city authority was seen as one significant mechanism. Nearly all were optimistic for the future.

The paper sets these initial findings in the context of what one interviewee described as a ‘stalled process’ (of economic reform), with central government not willing or able to respond to their concerns about the management of the system, especially since the 2017 general election. The reported absence of any space in the national legislative programme for schools because of the preparations for BREXIT means that even the much-discussed National Funding Formula (for school budgets) will be implemented via LAs for maintained schools, retaining some discretion, not the original intention (DfE, 2016: 68).  Nor is the process of academisation by any means complete; nor, it is argued, is it ever likely to be. At the time of the first interviews, Regional Schools Commissioners were in the early stages of setting up ‘Sub-Regional Schools Improvement Boards’ involving senior LA representatives, that will most likely remain ‘strategic partners’. In addition, according to several interviewees, a paper setting out the proposed statutory roles of LAs to be amended by subsequent legislation had been drafted before the 2017 election, but not published since.

Whereas it could be argued that the newer system based on school collaboration increasingly organised through MATs, overseen by Regional Schools Commissioners, might be more consistent and reliable in attaining greater equity in educational outcomes, a focus so limited leaves major moral (as opposed to technical) questions concerning the nature of ‘state’ schooling in England unanswered in policy: what democratic oversight will local and national communities have of their children’s education; how can and will parents be deeply involved.

This paper is based on research in two English Councils (local governments). It draws on interviews with senior politicians and officials among others and considers the extreme fluidity and its effects of a highly centralised schools system .

This paper reports and reflects on a series of semi-structured interviews with politicians and senior officers in two contrasting local authorities (LAs) in an English government region, informed by critical readings of local and national documentation, much of it not available in the public domain. Following initial work focused on the LAs, interviews were subsequently held with primary and secondary headteachers, Chief Executives of Multi-Academy Trusts (MATs), current and former government officials, Teaching School Council staff, private sector consultants and school governors. There have been repeat interviews with some officers. The focus at the beginning of the interview series was on the remaining responsibilities of LAs with respect to schooling, and how these enabled or obstructed the fulfilment of their wider visions for their communities. The diverse responsibilities (or none) for school improvement featured prominently in these earlier interviews. But more recently, the discussions have changed their tenor within the rapidly changing local school governance arrangements following 2018 announcements by the Secretary of State (Hinds, 2018), intended to make for a 'clearer' schools system. Following earlier indications, this announcement has not been followed up at the time of writing by a promised DfE consultation document on the responsibilities of local authorities. Nevertheless, there were almost immediate reductions in the staffing capacities of Regional Schools Commissioners (RSCs) and 'clarifications' of their responsibilities, particularly with respect to Ofsted. Local authorities had been 'coming back on to the scene' for some time, as one interviewee said, and this had been reflected in the Sub-Regional School Improvement Boards being set up by RSCs to supervise projects funded by the Strategic School Improvement Fund. This is/was a national fund available on a competitive bidding basis to maintained schools and academies (and MATs), which in fact closed to new bids in August 2018. These bodies have now been renamed 'Regional Education Partnership Boards' covering an area nevertheless smaller than the region and wider than an LA. The new arrangements for school improvement also assume a much greater role being taken at LA level through Local Authority Standards Boards. Both the LAs researched had been developing their own boards, with similar memberships representative of the LA, MATs, the dioceses, and heads, and both were envisioning some general oversight of school development and support. Arrangements were at a more developed stage in one LA than in the other, and this has been found subsequently to be reflected more widely in other LAs. These developments have been considered 'exciting' by some LA officers, as they give formal responsibilities to a body that might in the future also act as the major conduit for 'holding to account' MATs-so officers have been informed. However, Ofsted is also proposing to undertake 'evaluations' of MAT inputs to schools in the new inspection framework due to be implemented in 2019. These arrangements are extremely fluid and represent an 'unstable shifting assemblage' (Ball and Junemann, 2012), paradoxically set within the 'highly centralised state', as a former

This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement No part of this submission has been or will be submitted for any other academic award.

This paper reports initial outcomes from a short series of semi-structured interviews in 2017 with senior politicians from three parties elected to two contrasting English local authorities (LAs): an urban city authority and a largely rural shire county. These were complemented by continuing interviews with senior officers and head teachers, of both academies and maintained schools, some with positions in multi-academy trusts (MATs), and critical readings of LA strategic documents. Interviews focused on the nature of democratic authority in what is an increasingly privatised schools system in the sense that school governance and decision making have moved steadily away from the authority inherent in democratic representation of a local community towards a more technical (or technicist) conception that depends more on ‘people with the right skills, experience, qualities and capacity’ (DfE, 2017: 10). This process has been described as ‘depoliticisation’ (Ball, 2007), or even ‘destali...

Developing features of the English Education Polity since 2010 include the accelerating academy ‘conversion’ of primary and secondary schools (Gunter, 2012), and the parallel development of free schools (Benn, 2011). These have been accompanied by repeated repositionings of local authorities, formerly seen as key to improving opportunity (Deloitte, 2011; Pritchard, 2012, Brent Council, 2012), but now searching for a role. At the same time, organisations involved in or with the new schools, the sorts of non-state actors now prominent in education policy (Ball, 2010), speak with multiple voices and, with some exceptions (eg Coles, 2013), do not yet frame their discourse in systemic terms. This paper considers findings from a short series of interviews with key representatives in the developing polity: leaders in private sector organisations providing public services, academy chains, and organisations opposed to compulsory conversion. It compares the common and differing views across t...

The paper reports the findings of a short series of interviews with Additional Inspectors. This arose out of a much wider project researching the developing schools ‘system’ or ‘landscape’ (Simkins et al, 2014) after nearly five years of the Coalition Government, due for publication late 2015 (forthcoming). Interviews in maintained schools and academies and local authorities had revealed a wide range of views of the background and competence of Ofsted Inspection Teams (echoed in, for example, the Times Educational Supplement, 2014). Further discussions with one of the current Ofsted Inspection Providers (until school inspections were taken ‘in house’ with effect from September 1st, 2015), and examination of the web-based lists of additional inspectors of the two others, revealed first some disagreement with this view but second the wide range of backgrounds from which current inspectors are drawn.

This article examines the nature and effects of the radical reforms to English school governance since 2010, the year in which a Coalition Government, led by the Conservative Party, came to power in the UK, and Michael Gove was ­appointed Secretary of State for Education for England, a post he occupied for four formative years of Education reform. These governance reforms were part of a much wider programme of change, arguably fundamental in the sense that they have affected the classroom experiences of students directly. This programme encompassed changes to the curriculum, the assessment of children (and, by proxy, teachers and schools), the initial training and assessment of teachers and, eventually, school inspection, with the most recent revised Ofsted Inspection Framework governing inspections in use from September 2019 (Ofsted 2019). Nevertheless, governance changes provide the framework through which all educational change in the future can be conceived, considered, interpre...

2022 was a 'disaster for living standards' as the Resolution Foundation said in a recent report. But it was a disaster for most other things as well. Putting aside the well-rehearsed statistic of (now more than) seven million people waiting for elective health treatments, the best we can say is that there are no signs of the UK economy itself returning to growth of any kind. The last decade is widely portrayed as 'lost' in terms of investment and productivity, and the likely proceeds of any future increase in wealth are unlikely to be shared equally.

This blog, published on the date of the first teacher strike in England for decades, considers the effects of increased centralisation of education in England. While ministers may argue that government's job is to get out teachers' way, the very opposite is happening.