Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T15:46:32.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Free Schools in England: ‘Not Unlike other Schools’?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2017

SUSANNE WIBORG ,
FRANCIS GREEN ,
PETER TAYLOR-GOOBY  and
RACHEL J. WILDE
SUSANNE WIBORG
Affiliation:
UCL Institute of Education, 20 Bedford Way, London WC1H OAL email: [email protected]
FRANCIS GREEN
Affiliation:
UCL Institute of Education, 20 Bedford Way, London WC1H OAL email: [email protected]
PETER TAYLOR-GOOBY
Affiliation:
University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NF email: [email protected]
RACHEL J. WILDE
Affiliation:
UCL Institute of Education, 20 Bedford Way, London WC1H OAL email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this article is to investigate the argument that choice and competition will unleash entrepreneurial innovation in free schools. Free schools were introduced as a subset of the Academies by the Conservative–Liberal Democrat Coalition government, following the general election in 2010. The government made it possible for non-state providers to set up their own independent, state-funded schools in order to create more choice, competition and innovation. We conclude that a higher level of substantive innovation is taking place in regards to management practices than in respect of curriculum and pedagogical practices. Innovation in curriculum and pedagogical practices is very limited. Creating a free school offer that seems to differ from other schools appears to be done through marketing and branding rather than innovation. We argue that parents, OFSTED, and the relative isolation of free schools constrain innovation from taking place.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , January 2018 , pp. 119 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brown, B.W. (1992), ‘Why government run schools’, Economics of Education Review, 11 (4), 287–300.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. (2011), PM's speech on the Big Society, Cabinet Office, 15.2.2011 https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-speech-on-big-society Google Scholar
Chubb, J.E. and Moe, T.M. (1990), Politics, Markets, and America's Schools. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Christensen, C.M., Horn, M.B. and Johnson, C.W. (2008), Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Cirin, R. (2014), Are free Schools using innovative approaches. Research Report, Department for Education.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. and Powel, W.W. (1991), ‘Introduction’. In: Powel, W.W. and Dimaggio, P. (eds.) The New Instituionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Edquist, C. (1999), ‘Innovation policy – a systemic approach’, The Globalizing Learning Economy. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
Gorard, S. (2016), ‘The complex determinants of school intake characteristics and segregation, England 1989 to 2014’, Cambridge Journal of Education, 46 (1), 131–146.Google Scholar
Green, F., Allen, R. and Jenkins, A. (2015), ‘Are English free schools socially selective: A quantitative analysis’, British Educational Research Journal, 41 (6), 907–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatcher, R. (2011), ‘The Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition government's “free schools” in England’, Educational Review, 63 (4), 485–503.Google Scholar
Higham, R. (2014a), ‘Free schools in the Big Society: the motivations, aims and demography of free school proposers’, Journal of Education Policy, 29 (1), 122–139.Google Scholar
Higham, R. (2014b), ‘Who owns our schools? An analysis of the governance of free schools in England’, Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 42, 404–422.Google Scholar
Horn, J. and Miron, G. (2000), An evaluation of the Michigan charter school initiative: Performance, accountability, and impact. Kalamazoo, MI: Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University.Google Scholar
House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 November, 2010. (2010), www.parliament.uk Google Scholar
Immergut, E.M. (2005), ‘Institutional constraints’. In: Moran, M., Rein, M. and Goodin, R. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, B., Edquist, C. and Lundvall, BÅ. (2004), Economic development and the national system of innovation approach. Georgia: Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1955), ‘The role of government in education’. In Solo, R.A. (ed.) Economics and the public interest. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Lubienski, C. (2009), ‘Do quasi-markets foster innovation in education? A comparative perspective’, OECD Working papers, No. 25, OECD publishing.Google Scholar
Mahoney, J. (2000), ‘Path dependency in Historical Sociology’, Theory and Society. 29 (4), 507–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maranto, R., Milliman, S. F. Hess and Gresham, A. (1999), School Choice in the Real World: Lessons from Arizona charter schools. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1992), ‘Institutionalised organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony’. In: Meyer, W. and Scott, W.R. (Eds.) Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Miller, P., Craven, B. and Tooley, J. (2014), ‘Setting up a free school: successful proposers’ experiences’, Research Papers in Education, 29 (2), 351–371.Google Scholar
Miron, G. and Nelson, C (2002), What's public about charter schools? Lessons learned about choice and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA. Corwin Press.Google Scholar
Moe, T. and Wiborg, S. (2017), The Comparative Politics of Education. Teacher Unions and Education Systems Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morris, R. (2015), Free Schools and disadvantaged intakes. British Educational Research Journal. 41 (4), 535–552.Google Scholar
OECD (2005), Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd Edition.Google Scholar
Salge, T.O. and Vera, A. (2012), ‘Benefitting from public sector innovation: The moderating role of customer and learning orientation’,Public Administration Review, 72 (4), 550–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vhlachos, J. (2011), Friskölor i förandring. In Hartman, J. et al. (eds) Konkurrencens konsekvenser. Vad händer med svensk velfärd. Stockholm: SNS Förlag. [Free Schools in Transision. In: Consequences of Competition. What happens to Swedish Welfare?]Google Scholar
Walford, G. (2014a), ‘From city technology colleges to free schools: sponsoring new schools in England’, Research Papers in Education, 29 (3), 315–329.Google Scholar
Walford, G. (2014b), ‘Academies, free schools and social justice’, Research Papers in Education, 29 (3), 263–267.Google Scholar
Whitty, G., Power, S. and Halpin, D. (1998), Devolution & Choice in Education. The School, the State and the Market. Buckinham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Wiborg, S. (2015), ‘Privatizing Education: Free School Policy in Sweden and England’, Comparative Education Review, 59 (3), 473–497.Google Scholar
Wiborg, S. (2017), ‘Teacher Unions in England: The end is nigh?’ In: Moe, T. and Wiborg, S. (eds.) The Comparative Politics of Education. Teacher Unions and Education Systems Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar