School governance: redressing the democratic deficit

One of the most significant pieces of legislation to affect education policy in England is the Academies Act 2010 introduced by the Coalition government. Overturning previous legislation which limited academy conversions to ‘failing’ and ‘underperforming’ schools, the Academies Act 2010 made it possible for all ‘good’ and ‘outstanding’ schools (and, for the first time, primary schools and special schools) to convert to academy status through the acquisition of a foundation or trust. Both ambitious and brazen, the Academies Act 2010 not only expanded opportunities for further private sector involvement in the running of public sector schools but enabled a whole set of new techniques and strategies designed to bring the gaze of government to bear upon the actions of others.

Under the authority of a board of trustees and a separate funding agreement with the Secretary of State, academies and free schools (legally the same) are permitted to operate outside the purview of local government, albeit still accountable to local government on matters of special needs and exclusions, as is required of all publicly-funded schools.  This means that school leaders and school governors who run academies and free schools take ownership of the land and buildings, set the curriculum and admissions policy, manage budget spending, employ staff directly, and source their own suppliers and professional advisers.  In structural-policy terms these reforms are intended to enhance school autonomy, scale back local government, expand deregulation, and relieve schools of top-heavy bureaucracy.  The idea here being that ‘local authorities will no longer maintain schools. This change will help us to empower local communities, putting children and parents first’, as the government described it last year. 

Yet the reality of school governance is sometimes far removed from such potent, romantic imagery. 

Reforms to school governance in England have proven to be highly controversial since 2010 with evidence of financial scandal and mismanagement, related party transactions and conflicts of interest, selective admission policies fuelling social segregation, multi-academy trust CEOs claiming inordinate salaries, academy conversions lacking democratic consultation, and escalating procurement and legal costs required to convert schools to academies and build new free schools.  Moreover, the culture of school governance has changed dramatically during this time.  Proportional representation and wider community participation – once considered to be the organising principles of school governance – have been displaced where they fail to contribute to the smooth managerial oversight of the school’s educational and financial performance. 

In response a corporate managerial approach to school governance has taken hold to the extent that ‘good governance’ tends to be framed in narrow techno-bureaucratic terms to mean improved proficiency in auditing, performance management, compliance checking, and the goal-oriented steering of outputs and outcomes more generally.  School governors in turn are being trained in the art and discipline of ‘deliverology’.  Increasingly school governors are harnessing the power of data and data tools to meet these expectations, including the Department for Education’s school comparison tool, RAISEonline, Fischer Family Trust (FFT) Governor Dashboard (developed in partnership with the National Governance’ Association, NGA), skills audits, and bespoke self-evaluation tools.