Feminism Feudalism anarchism Freedom of Information Functionalism Gender
Global Capitalism Globalisation Great Thinkers Habituation of the Nation Hellinistic Philosophy Historical Materialism
Human Freedom Human Rights Humanity Immorality Independent Thinking Industrial Revolution
Pedagogy of Revolution

Flow of Ideas: articles - The Evolution of Federations of Schools

A Capital Friendly Culture for Further EducationA Capital Friendly Culture for Further Education
Academy ChainsAcademy Chains
After the Hillcole GroupAfter the Hillcole Group
Against What We Are WorthAgainst What We Are Worth
Ambassadors of Capital in SchoolsAmbassadors of Capital in Schools
An Educational Mansion House for BusinessAn Educational Mansion House for Business
Apprenticeship and the Use-value Aspect of Labour PowerApprenticeship and the Use-value Aspect of Labour Power
Artistic OutlookArtistic Outlook
Ayers Rocked In His Own UniverseAyers Rocked In His Own Universe
B GenerationB Generation
Bourdieu on CapitalBourdieu on Capital
Bourdieu on Cultural CapitalBourdieu on Cultural Capital
Bourdieu on Social CapitalBourdieu on Social Capital
Brown PFI MonsterBrown PFI Monster
Business Sponsorship of SchoolsBusiness Sponsorship of Schools
Business Takeover of Further EducationBusiness Takeover of Further Education
Cambridge University OccupationCambridge University Occupation
Caught in the Storm of CapitalCaught in the Storm of Capital
Co-payment in Hospitals and SchoolsCo-payment in Hospitals and Schools
Cold Hands and Quarter MoonCold Hands and Quarter Moon
Communitarianism for SchoolsCommunitarianism for Schools
Compulsory Consumption and Uni-NannyCompulsory Consumption and Uni-Nanny
Conforming Schools Conforming KidsConforming Schools Conforming Kids
Copy/South DossierCopy/South Dossier
Creating MonstersCreating Monsters
Creeping Privatisation in Higher EducationCreeping Privatisation in Higher Education
Critical MassCritical Mass
Critical Pedagogy and CapitalismCritical Pedagogy and Capitalism
Critical Space in EducationCritical Space in Education
Delivering E-LearningDelivering E-Learning
Digital Rights ManagementDigital Rights Management
DistillationDistillation
Dorothy L. SayersDorothy L. Sayers
Douglas Kennedy: best-selling novelistDouglas Kennedy: best-selling novelist
E-learning for Free at the BBCE-learning for Free at the BBC
Edison Schools in the UKEdison Schools in the UK
Education and Inspections Bill (2006)Education and Inspections Bill (2006)
Education As Culture MachineEducation As Culture Machine
Education FireworksEducation Fireworks
Education for DebtEducation for Debt
Education IncorporatedEducation Incorporated
Education Markets and Missing ProductsEducation Markets and Missing Products
Education RepetitionEducation Repetition
Education the HSBC WayEducation the HSBC Way
Education White PaperEducation White Paper
Education, Globalisation and the Learning SocietyEducation, Globalisation and the Learning Society
Employers and School LeaversEmployers and School Leavers
Evaluating Different Teaching MethodsEvaluating Different Teaching Methods
Everything Louder Than Everything ElseEverything Louder Than Everything Else
Finance and FearFinance and Fear
Five Endings of DesiresFive Endings of Desires
Foibles, Frolics and PhantasmsFoibles, Frolics and Phantasms
FreedomFreedom
FreewillFreewill
French New Wave CinemaFrench New Wave Cinema
Full Report Ruth Rikowski[a]s Book Launch for Globalisation, Information and LibrariesFull Report Ruth Rikowski's Book Launch for Globalisation, Information and Libraries
Gender and Spokesperson in Group Work IssuesGender and Spokesperson in Group Work Issues
Global TradingGlobal Trading
Globalisation and Education RevisitedGlobalisation and Education Revisited
Habituation of the NationHabituation of the Nation
Higher Education and Confused Employer SyndromeHigher Education and Confused Employer Syndrome
Hitchcock: classic auteurHitchcock: classic auteur
Human capital, the knowledge economy and businessHuman capital, the knowledge economy and business
In Retro GlideIn Retro Glide
In the Dentist[a]s ChairIn the Dentist's Chair
Kids in the Land of No DreamsKids in the Land of No Dreams
KM CritiqueKM Critique
Lazy Brit KidsLazy Brit Kids
Learning in the Earthworks of CapitalLearning in the Earthworks of Capital
Learning InvestmentsLearning Investments
Learning to the MaxLearning to the Max
Librarianship and Human RightsLibrarianship and Human Rights
Lifelong Learning and the Political Economy of ContainmentLifelong Learning and the Political Economy of Containment
LSBU StrategyLSBU Strategy
Marketisation of the Schools System in EnglandMarketisation of the Schools System in England
Marx and Education RevisitedMarx and Education Revisited
Marx and the Future of the HumanMarx and the Future of the Human
Marxism and Education RevisitedMarxism and Education Revisited
Marxist Educational Theory UnpluggedMarxist Educational Theory Unplugged
Maturity and FreedomMaturity and Freedom
McDonaldization and EducationMcDonaldization and Education
Michael JacksonMichael Jackson
Michele RobertsMichele Roberts
Miss Allison and Novel WritingMiss Allison and Novel Writing
Moneythought in Higher EducationMoneythought in Higher Education
Mrs Thatcher and Holes in the Kitchen FloorMrs Thatcher and Holes in the Kitchen Floor
Multiculturalism and Faith SchoolsMulticulturalism and Faith Schools
My Tony BlairMy Tony Blair
New Ideas in Ruth Rikowski[a]s Book - Part 1New Ideas in Ruth Rikowski's Book - Part 1
New Ideas in Ruth Rikowski[a]s Book - Part 2New Ideas in Ruth Rikowski's Book - Part 2
New Labour Policy for SchoolsNew Labour Policy for Schools
Nietzsche[a]s SchoolNietzsche's School
Nihilism and Educational ValuesNihilism and Educational Values
No Learner Left UnhassledNo Learner Left Unhassled
Notes on the Confessions of John DenhamNotes on the Confessions of John Denham
On Education for Its Own SakeOn Education for Its Own Sake
On Education StudiesOn Education Studies
On the Capitalisation of Schools in EnglandOn the Capitalisation of Schools in England
On Transhumanism and EducationOn Transhumanism and Education
Open AccessOpen Access
Outsourcing Public ServicesOutsourcing Public Services
Peter Wilby on School PrivatisationPeter Wilby on School Privatisation
Planet of the CapitorgPlanet of the Capitorg
PlatoPlato
Playgound Risks and Handcuffed KidsPlaygound Risks and Handcuffed Kids
Poems by Gregory RikowskiPoems by Gregory Rikowski
Poems by Victor RikowskiPoems by Victor Rikowski
Post-Fordism and SchoolsPost-Fordism and Schools
Post-Fordism in Primary SchoolsPost-Fordism in Primary Schools
Postmodern Dereliction in the Face of Neoliberal Education PolicyPostmodern Dereliction in the Face of Neoliberal Education Policy
PowerPointlessness in Higher EducationPowerPointlessness in Higher Education
Private Schools as CharitiesPrivate Schools as Charities
Privatisation of Schools in EnglandPrivatisation of Schools in England
Privatisation of Student DebtPrivatisation of Student Debt
Races in the Imperial WarRaces in the Imperial War
Readings for Teaching CourseReadings for Teaching Course
Recruitment and Labour PowerRecruitment and Labour Power
Revealed Recruitment Criteria through the Use-value Aspect of Labour-powerRevealed Recruitment Criteria through the Use-value Aspect of Labour-power
Robotic EthicsRobotic Ethics
Ruth Rikowski Updates (Archives)Ruth Rikowski Updates (Archives)
Ruth Rikowski Updates (Archives)Ruth Rikowski Updates (Archives)
School Fees and the 1944 Education ActSchool Fees and the 1944 Education Act
Schools: Building for BusinessSchools: Building for Business
Science Fiction Films and HorrorScience Fiction Films and Horror
Second Time as FarceSecond Time as Farce
Snowballs and Risk in SchoolsSnowballs and Risk in Schools
Social Contract Theory and Political ObligationsSocial Contract Theory and Political Obligations
Socialism is not DeadSocialism is not Dead
Speed of Life - Part OneSpeed of Life - Part One
Speed of Life - Part TwoSpeed of Life - Part Two
Stroppy Individuals and Oppositional Cultures in SchoolsStroppy Individuals and Oppositional Cultures in Schools
Sustainability Policy at London South Bank UniversitySustainability Policy at London South Bank University
Ten Points on Marx, Class and EducationTen Points on Marx, Class and Education
The Business of Becoming a Business for AcademiesThe Business of Becoming a Business for Academies
The Capitalisation of Schools - Federations and AcademiesThe Capitalisation of Schools - Federations and Academies
The CBI and the Business Takeover of SchoolsThe CBI and the Business Takeover of Schools
The Commodification of EducationThe Commodification of Education
The Education White Paper and the Marketisation of SchoolsThe Education White Paper and the Marketisation of Schools
The Evolution of Federations of SchoolsThe Evolution of Federations of Schools
The Last Parents EveningThe Last Parents Evening
The New Japanisation of SchoolsThe New Japanisation of Schools
The Profit Virus - The Business Takeover of SchoolsThe Profit Virus - The Business Takeover of Schools
The Standards Language-game for Schools in EnglandThe Standards Language-game for Schools in England
The Which Blair ProjectThe Which Blair Project
Three Types of Apprenticeship - Three Forms of MasteryThree Types of Apprenticeship - Three Forms of Mastery
Tony and Caroline BennTony and Caroline Benn
Tony Benn: Letters to GrandchildrenTony Benn: Letters to Grandchildren
TransportTransport
Turney[a]s and PPUTurney's and PPU
Uninspiring TowersUninspiring Towers
Universe of Capital and My SpaceUniverse of Capital and My Space
Universities in a Neoliberal WorldUniversities in a Neoliberal World
Utopia and EducationUtopia and Education
What Can Nietzsche Teach YaWhat Can Nietzsche Teach Ya
When Bullies Roam the SchoolWhen Bullies Roam the School
When the Bowers BreakWhen the Bowers Break
Why Employers Can[a]t Ever Get What They WantWhy Employers Can't Ever Get What They Want
Will Hutton and His E-FossWill Hutton and His E-Foss
Wolf on Marx Without SparksWolf on Marx Without Sparks
Women in World WarsWomen in World Wars






Chandos Book Publishing

Federation Starships? The Evolution of Federations of Schools in England



Glenn Rikowski
School of Education, University College Northampton, UK


A Paper Presented at the Education Studies / Education Policy Research Seminar
University College Northampton, School of Education, Yelvertoft 209,
24th February 2005.


Introduction

This paper outlines the movement from New Labour’s interest in federations of schools, as first set out in the Education Bill of November 2001 (Her Majesty’s Government, 2001) to foundation partnerships in the recent Five Year Strategy (DfES, 2004a), and finally to more recent statements from the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) regarding the future of ‘foundation partnerships’. The key question posed here is whether New Labour’s agenda for the business takeover of schools has been downgraded in this switch of interest.

Overall, the paper is set within a specific interest in the business takeover of schools as exemplified in some earlier works (e.g. Rikowski, 2001, 2003a, and 2003b).


The Evolution of Federations

There was reference to ‘removing obstacles to partnership working’ and ‘enabling new partners and sponsors to come into the system’ in the White Paper of 5th September 2001, Schools: Achieving Success (DfES, 2001a, p.57). There was also a section on ‘Establishing new partnerships’ in the White Paper (pp.39-40) that indicated there would be new forms of partnership between schools that would include the private sector as well as the voluntary sector and faith groups. It was also indicated that the private sector might provide ‘strong management support for schools’ (p.39). The nearest the White Paper got to the concept of federated schools was when it was mentioned that:

“We are supporting new partnerships in a variety of circumstances, including in areas with a selective admissions system where we are encouraging grammar and non-selective schools to share expertise and learn from each other. We will invite more such partnerships to apply for funding of up to £20,000 for joint projects between two or more schools, perhaps alongside other partners including the LEA (local education authority)” (DfES, 2001a, p.40).

But such partnerships fall a long way short of a full-blown federation of schools with a core management structure.

The concept of ‘federations of schools’ emerged with greater clarity in the Education Bill of November 2001 (Her Majesty’s Government, 2001). Part 3, chapter 1, section 23 of the Education Bill is devoted to federations of schools (Her Majesty’s Government, 2001, pp.14-15) and section 24 to supplementary provisions regarding federations (p.15). The Bill proposed joint governing bodies for schools within a federation with associated rules for schools leaving and joining the federation, and procedures for the dissolution of federations and for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities between governing bodies forming a federation. Part 5, section 70 (pp.47-48) dealt with proposals for the establishment of a federated school. The more user-friendly summary of the Education Bill (DfES, 2001b), in the section on ‘Lifting barriers to partnership’ noted that ‘we will make it possible for schools to create a full federation, with a single governing body for several schools’ (para 3.4, p.8). In this way the notion of a federation of schools entered the educational landscape in England.

The notion of a federation or ‘chain’ of schools is not surprising given developments nationally in the further education (FE) sector post-1993, and in the United States and in the UK. In the FE sector post-1993, with the Incorporation of colleges on 1st April of that year, a number of colleges went in for franchising provision with a range of private sector, charitable and community and religious organisations. This grounded the notion of networks of providers linked to a central administrative core: the FE college. Yet the concept of federation as set out in the Education Bill of November 2001 was much tighter than the loose network model of FE franchising, where constituent organisations typically kept a strong identity, with their own management structures.

The chains of schools run by Edison Schools Inc. in the United States were nearer the model for federated schools in England, but with the latter having a much tougher regulative framework. Furthermore, UK education businesses such as Nord Anglia and Edison Schools from the United States were in discussions with New Labour very early on about the best ways of facilitating business penetration of schools in England. Journalist Francis Beckett (1998, 1999) tracked these meetings, and warned about New Labour’s intention to open school gates to private operators. These businesses expressed interest in running chains of schools in order to attain economies of scale (Rikowski, 2003b, p.95).

Another model that may have had an impact was the 3Es Enterprises federation of schools that was started up in 2001. Significantly, the 3Es project was announced in March 2001, after the very pro-business Green Paper of February 2001 (DfEE, 2001) but prior to the White Paper’s appearance in September 2001 (DfES, 2001a). This development was reported by Jim Kelly, education correspondent for the Financial Times:

“Britain’s first chain of privately managed state schools will be announced today. The federation, to be run by 3E’s Enterprises, will begin with three schools but predicts rapid growth. The idea is to export the success of one of the country’s top schools to struggling schools. Video and internet links will be used to counter teacher shortages. Federation teachers will be able to take time out of the classroom to develop internet content. Any profit from selling online lessons to other schools will be reinvested in the federation” (Kelly, 2001a).

At the hub of this federation was the Kingshurst City Technology College (CTC) in Solihull. The Kingshurst Federation run by 3Es also included Kings College, Guildford and Kings International College, Camberley (which opened in September 2001). 3Es was originally a spin-off from Kingshurst CTC. Several other companies were involved in the Kingshurst Federation, including Digitalbrain of London, AuDeo Systems of Basingstoke, and Tulip Computer & Smart Technologies (Kelly, 2001a). Yet all this was still more like a network of schools or ‘virtual federation’ than a federation with a strong sense of corporate identity and common purpose. Nevertheless, the 3Es example resurfaced on the very day that the White Paper (DfES, 2001a) was published: 5th September 2001. Then the principal of Kingshurst CTC (at the head of the Kingshurst Federation) announced that the school was branching out into franchising in the schools sector, where schools could buy a franchise from Kingshurst and the profits would go back into the Kingshurst Federation (see Kelly, 2001b). As Jim Kelly reported, the not-for-profit company 3Es had not received flak from parents and teachers as surpluses were going to be ploughed back into the Federation (Ibid.). However, noted Kelly:

“A franchising operation would provide the private sector with a new route into helping run state schools. But the government intends to protect the key controlling role of governors in all state schools” (2001b).

Thus, the stumbling block with for-profit education businesses wanting to take over state schools by incorporating them into federations would be their inability to control their operations given traditional school governance mechanisms. However, Sir Kevin Satchwell, head of Thomas Telford School read much more into the White Paper (DfES, 2001a) on this score. Jim Kelly reported that according to Satchwell there were ‘exciting possibilities’ for franchising in the schools sector (2001b). Indeed, Satchwell argued that the White Paper cleared the way ‘for joint venture boards of governors’ to help run school chains (Ibid.).

From this account, it is clear that the concepts of federation, chains of schools and franchising were circulating in the media and policy-making circles before the Education Bill of November 2001 and that these concepts were linked to money being generated from activities in the schools sector. Up to the Education Bill however, the emphasis was still on not-for-profit activities, with funds generated being reinvested back into the schools operated by the fledgling education businesses such as 3Es and the Thomas Telford School in Shropshire.

But all the time the wolves of the for-profit sector were lurking in the background, waiting for the opportunity to enter the schools sector in England with real profit-making opportunities in their teeth. The key part of the Education Bill (Her Majesty’s Government, 2001) that gave them hope was section 10 on ‘Powers of governing bodies to form or invest in companies to provide services etc’ (pp.6-7). This opened up the possibility of governing bodies establishing companies and investing in other companies. Thus, when set in conjunction with the proposals for federations the possibility of school-based companies forming federations emerges. The problem for the for-profit sector therefore, was to gain entry to this potential market and packing school governing bodies with executives of education business representatives was not a speedy, politically sophisticated or risk-free strategy. Traditional school governors, folks who gave up their own free time as community volunteers, were not likely to sit well with business types trying to bounce schools into federations run for profit. In March 2002, Chris Woodhead, former head of the schools inspection organisation, the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted), indicated that he had plans to set up a federation of low-priced private schools (Gerard and Hackett, 2002). Investors were backing him in this venture to the tune of £20 million (Ibid.). Interestingly, although Woodhead’s federation was essentially concerned with bargain basement private schools, he raised the stakes by adding that he was also seeking to bring failing state schools into his operations. In the event, the Woodhead federation came to nothing. Would Education Act 2002 yield some lambs up to the business wolves through the establishment of federations that they could easily gain control of?

On federations, the 2002 Education Act (Her Majesty’s Government, 2002a) was little different to the Education Bill. As section 24 (p.15) indicates, federations of two or more schools were to be run by a single governing body and rules regulating schools joining and leaving federations were announced – much the same as for the Education Bill. The legislation regarding governing bodies setting up companies were also much the same as the Education Bill. Federations therefore, were not obviously an easy ride for corporate wolves wanting to rip profits from state revenue-backed schools. However, it did yield some scraps. Education Act 2002 established that school companies could enter into deals with private sector companies and these companies could also be part of a federation of schools. Furthermore, clarification by the School Standards Minister David Miliband indicated that private companies could lead federations of schools (see Kelly, 2002a), and these leaders would not need teaching qualifications. Thus, federations could appoint business leaders to head their operations, and Kelly reported that:

“Ministers believe that local senior business figures would make ideal leaders in such circumstances, bringing management abilities and leadership skills to the strategic control of the schools. It is an idea that has been tried out in the independent school sector but not widely adopted” (Kelly, 2002a).

Whilst Ministers were advocating a form of management for federations largely rejected by private schools they were clearly envisioning that local business leaders should become the ‘superheads’ of the federations, and not representatives from education businesses or large service companies that were not ‘local’. This was probably not encouraging for the corporate wolves.

Finally, the Minister of State for Education had the power to limit the number of schools within a federation under Education Act 2002. This point is made clearer in the Explanatory Notes to the Act (Her Majesty’s Government, 2002b, p.13). Companies wanting to take over significant numbers of schools via federations would no doubt find this provision potentially restricting.

In the aftermath of Education Act 2002, David Miliband, School Standards Minister, attempted to give federations more substance by announcing intentions to amalgamate the exam scores for schools in federations for exam league table purposes (Kelly, 2002b). The argument advanced for it was that the best schools within a federation had an interest in helping to pull up the scores of those not doing so well. However, after the publication of Education Act 2002 many local education authorities (LEAs) were trying to make sense of federations. The DfES provided some guidance on this. For example, on 6th December 2002 a conference was held in the Rutland County Council Offices and hosted by the DfES through the Government Office for the East Midlands (GOEM). Head teachers, school governors and representatives from East Midlands LEAs were present (Herbert, 2002). The keynote speaker was Sue Dasey, Head of Communications at the DfES Standards and Effectiveness Unit. Dasey noted that the concept of ‘federation’ was a wide one, stretching from a group of schools being formally federated with a single super head teacher and a single governing body, to much looser collaborative arrangements between schools. Christine Pfaff provided a presentation of a four-school federation that she headed in rural Dorset. The GOEM gave presentations on examples of federations in the East Midlands counties. The benefits of federations were explained as (Herbert, 2002, p.1):

1. Improving leadership
2. Better results through more resources
3. Better staff planning and co-operation
4. Enhanced professional development for small schools
5. Opportunity to make the curriculum more coherent
6. Savings on training costs
7. Money can be more flexibly used across the Federation
8. Joint programmes easier to develop
9. Support groups of staff to consult and share, particularly in the secondary sector
10. Better capacity for special needs.

However:

“It was pointed out that the Federation experience had shown that people were very protective of their schools. Hearts and minds had to be won in any successful venture” (Herbert, 2002, p.2).

Herbert’s (2002) report on the conference also noted that two main types of federation were emerging. First, there was the ‘hard’ federation concept, where schools entered into a formal agreement or contract with a single governing body as enabled by Education Act 2002. These had a higher level of autonomy and power to innovate, including forming companies, and the opportunity to bring down additional funding. Then there were ‘soft’ federations, informal forms of collaboration, some of these fairly long-established (Herbert, 2002, p.2). Yet federations of the ‘hard’ type were slow to take off. A question was put to the government in the House of Commons on 28th February 2002 regarding the establishment of federations as set out in the Education Bill of November 2001. Specifically, the questioner, Mr. Brady, wanted to know how many schools had expressed plans to be included in federations and whether there was a list of such schools. Stephen Timms, Schools Minister, replied on 6th March 2002 that there was no statutory mechanism for considering federation proposals (Hansard, 2002). However, Education Act 2002 did not immediately solve this problem. The Act only sanctioned regulations for federations to be set up, and no such regulations existed until 1st September 2003, having been made on 5th August 2003 and set before Parliament on 11th August 2003 (see Her Majesty’s Government, 2003). Meanwhile, a report in the Times Educational Supplement (Slater, 2002) indicated that pilot federations in Birmingham, Bradford, Essex and Gateshead were running ahead of the published regulations on federations, and were to be started up in early 2003. These were federations ‘composed mainly of secondary schools, working together with a particular focus’ (DfES, 2003, p.2). Altogether, there had been 40 expressions of interest to the DfES in federations from LEAs, individual schools and ‘possible federations’, ‘ranging from serious proposals to enquiries about the nature of the scheme’ (Slater, 2002).>br>
In April 2003, however, Charles Clarke, Secretary of State for Education and Skills, dealt a severe blow to the whole idea of school federations. It was his predecessor, Estelle Morris that had guided the Education Bill and Education Act 2002 through Parliament. She had resigned in the autumn of 2002, a few months after Education Act 2002 became law on 24th July 2002, due to a debacle on GCE A-level marking and the setting of grade boundaries. Charles Clarke was clearly not so committed to school federations, and the Financial Times ran a story that indicated he had ‘ditched plans to encourage schools to form formal federations’ (Kelly, 2003). According to Jim Kelly (2003), the arguments against federations as far as Clarke was concerned were that they could ‘undermine parental choice and local accountability’. The first point hinged on there being a uniform, corporate approach amongst federation schools, with the possibility of a common admissions policy so that pupils were given a place within the federation rather than at a specific school. The second point rested on there being federations that had distributed geographical locations: with schools cutting across LEA boundaries, perhaps hundreds of miles apart. Kelly (2003) noted that:
,br> “This U-turn comes in spite of the fact that the new Education Act contains the framework for schools to come together as “corporate” entities with single governing bodies, and that up to a dozen such schemes are being prepared by schools at local level.”

According to Kelly, Clarke wanted more informal schemes for school collaboration, and opposed federations that might tend towards incorporating a ‘bureaucratic and over-elaborate legal framework’ (Ibid.) in line with the specifications set out in Education Act 2002. But the die was cast. Clarke’s misgivings about federations came too late, and a DfES web site was up and running in the spring of 2003 providing schools and LEAs with advice and guidance on setting up or participating in federations [1]. The pilot programme was also outlined with three types of federation showcased (in DfES, 2003a, p.2):

1. Groups of two or more schools wanting to establish a joint governing body with the purpose of raising standards in the constituent schools
2. Groups of two or more schools wanting to establish a strategic governing body committee with the purpose of raising standards in the constituent schools
3. Groups of schools with a formal written agreement to work together to raise standards, with specified targets, evidence of a coherent management and coordination structure across the federation, possibly leading to more formal arrangements over time.

The guidance document demanded that all pilot federations ‘will have a robust system of monitoring and evaluation’ (Ibid.). The benefits of federation were outlined (p.3), as were the likely conditions for success (p.4), key questions schools and LEAs should ask before embarking on federation (pp.4-5), what sorts of things a federation can do (p.5), possible management structures (p.5), and possible federation models (pp.6-7). Finally, there was guidance on how to write a proposal for founding a federation (DfES, 2003a, pp.7-8). Informal, it was not.

Meanwhile, LEAs were still trying to make sense of what was going down with federations, especially after Charles Clarke’s intervention. For example, Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council (MBC) issued a special school governors’ information bulletin explaining what federations were (Calderdale MBC, 2003). According to this document there were two main forms of federation: governance federations and ‘federations as a wider concept’ (Calderdale MBC, 2003, p.2). The first kind referred to the federations as set out in sections 24 and 25 of Education Act 2002 which would come into force in September 2003. This process:

“... requires the disbanding of all the existing governing bodies for schools in a federation and the establishment of a single new governing body covering all the schools” (Calderdale MBC, 2003, p.2).

The wider concept of federations according to Calderdale MBC ranged from ‘soft federations’ including cluster and twinning arrangements, to ‘hard federations’ involving formal agreements and structures. Interestingly, Calderdale MBC went on to outline three main types of formal agreements that could be set up (p.3):

1. A single governing body for two or more schools
2. Joint governing body committees: a contractual arrangement for sharing or improving leadership, to give pupils access to other schools’ teaching or facilities, or to cover services provided
3. An agreement to appoint sponsor governors.

This last is interesting as it opens the door to private operators. With a key role on the governing body, sponsors would be in a position to influence school policies and strategies – including outsourcing and PFI provisions, as well as those involving commercialisation throughout the federation.

The game was moving away from Clarke. The DfES Standards Site was developing its explanations of federations, ‘hard’ and ‘soft’, and further pilots were announced, bringing the total to eighteen by May 2004. Furthermore, the DfES conducted a consultation on school governing bodies, focusing on federations and collaboration in 2003 (see for example, the responses of the NSPRE, 2003, and the NAHT, 2003). School governing body organisations were concerned about the implications of federations for the future of school governance, so a consultation on federations was unsurprising. The necessary statutory instrument providing the regulations as guidance for the DfES to consider proposals for federations went before Parliament on 11th August 2003, and came into force on 1st September 2003 (see Her Majesty’s Government, 2003). These are extremely complex regulations that will not be dealt with here, but it should be noted that for federation governing bodies two ‘sponsor governors’ could be appointed to the governing body in addition to the basic complement. Also on September 1st 2003, guidance regarding how to set up federations was published on the DfES web site (DfES, 2003b). The significant addition here was that only up to five schools could gang together to form a federation. If federations wanted to increase the number of schools beyond five then they would have to apply to the Secretary of State, and Charles Clarke had already warned that he was not keen on federations, especially large ones. Thus, this was a blow for outsourcers and corporate wolves wanting to run vast federations across LEA boundaries.

However, the picture was not entirely gloomy for the corporate wolves. Developments in Bradford were interesting for them. Bradford ran one of the early federation pilots, and had big plans for federations:

“Bradford is at the forefront of national thinking with its plans for Federations of secondary schools, colleges and work-based providers across the district. Education Bradford is working with its partners to develop five Federations which are already up and running. Other districts believed to be forming similar Federations this year are Birmingham, Essex and Gateshead.” (Education Bradford, 2003).

Altogether, 28 secondary schools were involved in the five Bradford Education federations (Education Bradford, 2003, p.2). For private sector corporate providers, this opens up the possibility of gaining control of and running networks of federations – albeit with a top limit of five schools per federation.

Yet when the DfES Five Year Strategy (DfES, 2004a) was published in July 2004, federations appeared to have been blown off the map altogether. There was no mention of federations in either Charles Clarke’s Foreword to the Five Year Strategy (Clarke, 2004a), nor in his statement to the House of Commons on July 8th concerning the Five Year Strategy (Clarke, 2004b), and neither in the accompanying DfES Press Notice (DfES, 2004b). However, Clarke had stamped his own brand onto federations of schools in his Five Year Strategy. They were now to be incorporated in the programme for foundation partnerships. They had not disappeared after all; simply re-named and re-branded.

There is a section in the Five Year Strategy on ‘Foundation Partnerships’ (DfES, 2004a, paras 44-46, pp.54-55). High-performing specialist schools would take the lead on forming foundation partnerships, and:

“Foundation Partnerships will enable groups of independent specialist schools to take on wider responsibilities on a collective basis, serving their students better, with funding devolved directly to the partnerships from the Local Authorities (p.54).” It was envisaged that the foundation partnerships would be developed ‘in partnership with Local Authorities’ (Ibid.). Areas where schools would collaborate in these partnerships might include school improvement, management of local strategies (e.g. the 14-19 curriculum), responsibility for excluded pupils, and special educational needs. The Five Year Strategy indicated that proposals on Foundation Partnerships would be published later in 2004 (p.55).

The plans for Foundation Partnerships should be read in conjunction with those for gaining foundation status. In the educational firmament of the Five Year Strategy, foundation schools were high-performing specialist schools that would be granted ‘freedom to own their own land and buildings, manage their assets, employ their staff, improve their governing bodies and forge partnerships with outside sponsors’ (Clarke, 2004b, p.2 - my emphasis). Ultimately, apart from failing schools, all secondary schools would have the right to ‘take on these powers by a simple vote of their governing body’ (DfES, 2004a, para. 21, p.48). Furthermore, schools with foundation status could establish themselves as a charitable foundation which would then be able to ‘appoint the majority of the governing body of the school’ (p.49) and this would:

“... extend generally the opportunity already available to a limited number of schools (which enjoy ‘voluntary aided’ or ‘academy’ status) to forge a long-term partnership with an external sponsor, including business, charitable and faith sponsors” (Ibid. – my emphases).

Thus, although complicated, there is a route through these proposals and provisions whereby for-profit operators would be able to gain control of foundation partnerships as the new ‘federations’, via governing bodies. Then they could set up networks of these foundation partnerships and have de facto control of lands, buildings, staff contracts and recruitment within them. These were all things that the education businesses (such as Nord Anglia) and corporate wolves (such as W.S. Atkins and Serco) were asking from New Labour in 1997. Admittedly, the processes of building up these networks of federations would be cumbersome, but in theory it could be done. However, it is likely that education businesses and large services providers would not be satisfied with this drawn-out route for gaining control of large numbers of schools.

The Specialist Schools Trust (SST) was quick to see the links noted above between federations and foundation partnerships. The SST saw foundation status as a method for opting out of LEA control. Furthermore, according to a report in the Times Educational Supplement by Dorothy Leprowska (2004): “The trust envisages schools establishing clusters, or federations, to act as the admissions authority. The groupings would co-operate in teacher recruitment, with staff working in more than one school if the need arose” (My emphasis).

Of course, it should not be forgotten that in the new environment post-Five Year Strategy, all schools would have business sponsors, with the possible exception of the 164 grammar schools. Thus, it would be almost universal that businesses would be involved in the life of schools and their development. In this climate, the proposals for Foundation Partnerships, foundation school status and the potential for school governing bodies to be controlled by business interests all help to create a political and social environment where the steps from business sponsorship to business takeover and control, eventually on a for-profit basis, become increasingly small ones. This apparent shift from business takeover of schools to business sponsorship of schools in the Five Year Strategy is discussed further in Rikowski (2005).


Conclusion

The significance of the evolution of federations of schools in England is that it opens possibilities for businesses to run schools for profit on an expanded scale in these ‘chains’. It is part of the capitalisation (Rikowski, 2004, p.574) of school in terms of creating the conditions for the generation of value, surplus value and profits. These profits are made by running schools at a cost lower than the sum awarded in the contract with perhaps a profit element built into the contract itself. These contracts are shrouded in secrecy, so determining the precise constituents for the mode of profit-making is hazardous.

Education businesses were asking New Labour from a very early stage to allow them to run substantial numbers of schools so that economies of scale, cross-subsidisation and ‘branding’ could be developed and enhanced. However, so far the legislation and regulatory framework regarding federations of schools in England has been disappointing and limited for businesses seeking to make profits in the schools sector. The fact that only five schools can form a federation is a serious defect from the point of view of the schools profit mongers. New Labour’s softly-softly and minimalist approach is perhaps all it can manage on federations of schools without storing up significant resistance to the policy. Whilst this slow evolutionary path will not suit its business friends and allies it provides oppositional forces precious time to critique and resist it.


NOTES
1. See http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/federations for the DfES web site on school federations, and DfES (2003b) for the corresponding guidance to schools document.


References

Beckett, F. (1998) Uncle Sam wants your school, New Statesman, 21st August, pp.16-17.

Beckett, F. (1999) Privatisation threatens more schools, New Statesman, 15th November, p.8.

Calderdale MBC (2003) Federations, Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Schools and Children’s Services, Governors’ Information Bulletin, No.29, May.

Clarke, C. (2004a) Foreword, to Department for Education and Skills: Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners, Cm 6272, Norwich: The Stationery Office.

Clarke, C. (2004b) A Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners, Statement to the House of Commons, 8th July, at:
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/speeches/speech.cfm?SpeechID=128

DfEE (2001) Schools: Building on Success, February, Department for Education and Skills, Norwich: The Stationery Office.

DfES (2001a) Schools: Achieving Success, Cm 5230, Department for Education and Skills, 5th September, Annesley: DfES Publications.

DfES (2001b) Education Bill 2001 - A Summary, Department for Education and Skills, Annesley: DfES Publications.

DfES (2003a) Federations: Guidance, The Federations Team, Standards & Effectiveness Unit, Department for Education and Skills, London: Department for Education and Skills, at:
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/federations

DfES (2003b) Guidance on the Federation of Schools, community schools, community special schools, VC schools and maintained nursery schools) (England) Regulations 2003, September, Department for Education and Skills, LEA/0312/2003, London: DfES.

DfES (2004a) Department for Education and Skills: Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners, Cm 6272, Department for Education and Skills, Norwich: The Stationery Office.

DfES (2004b) Excellence and Choice for All in Every Community, Department for Education and Skills, DfES Press Notice, 2004/0132, 8th July, at:
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2004_0132

Education Bradford (2003) Bradford is at leading edge of national thinking on Federations of schools, News Release, January, Education Bradford: Future House, Bolling Road, Bradford, BD4 7EB.

Gerard, J. & Hackett, G. (2002) Woodhead bid to set up his own schools, The Sunday Times, 10th March, p.1.15.

Hansard (2002) School Federations, House of Commons, Hansard Written Answers for 6th March 2002 (pt 3) [38856], The United Kingdom Parliament, at:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansard/vo020306/

Herbert, J. (2002) Report on a One Day Conference on Federation and Collaboration of Schools, The National Governors’ Council, 6th December. Available online at:
http://www.ngc.org/uk/Conferences%20folder/Federation.htm

Her Majesty’s Government (2001) Education Bill, Bill 55, 53/1, 22nd November, London: The Stationery Office.

Her Majesty’s Government (2002a) Education Act 2002, Chapter 32, 24th July, Norwich: The Stationery Office.

Her Majesty’s Government (2002b) Explanatory Notes: Education Act 2002, Norwich: The Stationery Office.

Her Majesty’s Government (2003) The Federation of Schools (Community Schools, Community Special Schools, Voluntary Controlled Schools and Maintained Nursery Schools) (England) Regulations 2003, Statutory Instrument 2003 No.1965, Norwich: The Stationery Office.

Kelly, J. (2001a) Privately managed state school chain to be launched, Financial Times, 14th March, p.4.

Kelly, J. (2001b) Leading state schools will set up franchise operations, Financial Times, 5th September, p.2.

Kelly, J. (2002a) Business people may run state school federations, Financial Times, 19th September, p.4.

Kelly, J. (2002b) Exam league tables may include ‘federations’, Financial Times, 5th August, p.4.

Kelly, J. (2003) Clarke ditches plans for formal school federations, Financial Times, 17th April, p.3.

Leprowska, D. (2004) Specialists urged to opt out, Times Educational Supplement, 6th August, p.1.

NAHT (2003) Response to DfES Consultation on School Federations, National Association of Head Teachers, July.

NSPRE (2003) DfES Consultation on School Governing Bodies: Federation and Collaboration, The National Society for Promoting Religious Education, available from:
http://www.natsoc.org.uk/news/news280703b.php

Rikowski, G. (2001) The Battle in Seattle: Its Significance for Education, London: Tufnell Press.

Rikowski, G. (2003a) Schools and the GATS Enigma, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, Vol.1 No.1, March, at: http://www.jceps.com/?pageID=article&articleID=8

Rikowski, G. (2003b) The business takeover of schools, Mediactive: Ideas Knowledge Culture, Issue 1, pp.91-110.

Rikowski, G. (2004) Marx and the Education of the Future, Policy Futures in Education, Vol.2 Nos. 3 & 4, pp.565-577, online at:
http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/viewpdf.asp?j=pfie&vol=2&issue=3&year=2004&article=10_Rikowski_PFEO_2_3-4_web&id=195.93.21.71

Rikowski, G. (2005) Silence on the Wolves: What is Absent in New Labour’s Five Year Strategy for Education, Education Research Centre, University of Brighton, Occasional Paper, May.

Slater, J. (2002) Federations prepare to operate in the new year, Times Educational Supplement, 13th December, p.2.


© Glenn Rikowski, London, 24th August 2006.

Print Friendly - Print Friendly with links
Anti-Imperialist
 © Copyright, Flow of Ideas, Ruth Rikowski and Glenn Rikowski
current date time:
Capital and Class
Website Design and Coding by Digo PC
Site optimisation by Bytec Solutions
Free-thought Global Family Government
Higher Education Human Progress Idealism
Immorality Income Generation Indulgence
Injustice Intellectual Development Knowledge Management

Valid CSS!