Search results

The purpose of this paper is to describe and analyse the development of school autonomy, school leadership and curriculum innovation in England over the past 40 years. It provides a baseline picture for the wider international study on school autonomy and curriculum innovation.

An initial literature review was undertaken, including policy document analysis. Interviews and observations were undertaken with participants on a pilot professional programme for school leaders seeking to develop their school curriculum.

While all schools in England have needed to adapt their curricula to reflect the new National Curriculum introduced from 2014, relatively few schools appear to have used this opportunity to design genuinely innovative curricula that respond to the changing needs of learners in the twenty-first century. This includes the academies and free schools – currently around one in four schools – which are not legally required to follow the National Curriculum. The authors posit that leadership agency by principals and their professional teams is more important than policy/legal freedoms for securing curriculum innovation. Such agency appears to depend on the capacity and confidence of leaders to shape an alternative and innovative curriculum in the face of structural constraints, in particular England’s sharp accountability system, effectively making these leaders “rebels against the system”.

The empirical findings are preliminary and based on a small convenience sample.

Given England’s position as a relatively extreme example of high-autonomy-high-accountability quasi-market school reforms this paper provides valuable insights on school autonomy and curriculum innovation that can inform policy and practice more widely.

This chapter explores school-to-school collaboration via Teaching School Alliances (TSAs) in one locality in England, drawing on governance theory (Bevir, 2011) – specifically hierarchy, markets and networks (Tenbensel, 2017). It focusses on three TSAs in detail, describing their individual development as ‘school-led’ networks but also how they interact with each other and with other networks in the context of wider hierarchical and market-driven pressures and opportunities. It compares these examples to the three common TSA trajectories described by Greany and Higham (2018) – exclusive, marketized, and hierarchical – showing how these trajectories overlap and interact in hybrid forms. It concludes by discussing these findings in relation to social regulation and cohesion (Chapman, 2019; Hood, 1991) and to the wider themes in this book. We argue that while collaboration between schools in the English system has been driven at the policy level by an egalitarian narrative, in reality, such activity is enacted within a hierarchical and individualist framework which can be in tension with the professional values and ethics of school leaders. We conclude with recommendations, which include a need to rethink national and local accountability structures in order to encompass a broader range of outcomes; encourage more ambitious levels of experimentation in how the needs of children and families can best be addressed; focus on place-based coherence and collaboration; and, finally, develop the skills and capacity of frontline leaders to shape productive networks.