'Because we can': Pluralism and structural reform in education

Ron Glatter

doi:10.18546/lre.15.1.10

Abstract

This article revisits a major paper published a decade ago by the political scientist Christopher Pollitt about the highly activist approach to the reform of public services taken in England in recent years. In education, the pace has accelerated since that paper appeared. The weaknesses of the current structures and processes resulting from this reforming zeal are enumerated. A particular focus is placed on the technocratic and market-oriented features of the current context, and their significance in the light of the moral, social, and cultural issues that lie at the heart of schooling. It is argued that analysts of educational governance pay insufficient attention to the distinctive characteristics of the British constitution and their impact on changes in structure and process within education, leading not just to a democratic deficit but also to a paucity of pluralism.

Highlights

A decade ago, in a magisterial article, the political scientist Christopher Pollitt coined the term ‘redisorganization’ to denote the serial restructuring that had been a characteristic feature of the government of public services in various jurisdictions over the previous 20 years or so (Pollitt, 2007)
The Finnish educationist Pasi Sahlberg includes in his identification of the key elements of what he calls the ‘Global Educational Reform Movement’ (GERM): standardized teaching and learning, a strong focus on core academic subjects, and test-based accountability and control.The only element in the list that is explicitly focused on structures is ‘borrowing market-oriented reform ideas’, which according to Sahlberg involves aligning schools and systems to the ‘operational logic of private corporations’ (Sahlberg, 2011: 103)
We have suggested that some schools find their own way through this fragmented system in order to develop creative responses to diversity. (Ainscow et al, 2016: 29). The latter point indicates once more that some schools and school leaders are able to overcome barriers imposed by problematic systems and structures and manage to find a way to succeed in spite of these, but that does not mean such arrangements are beneficial for the system as a whole

Summary

Introduction

A decade ago, in a magisterial article, the political scientist Christopher Pollitt coined the term ‘redisorganization’ to denote the serial restructuring that had been a characteristic feature of the government of public services in various jurisdictions over the previous 20 years or so (Pollitt, 2007). In England over recent years there has been a significant and unprecedented development of ‘governance by contract’ (Feintuck and Stevens, 2013), whereby a substantial proportion of schools funded by the taxpayer are contracted out under the academies programme by the Secretary of State to an extremely diverse range of third parties via so-called ‘funding agreements’.This has placed increased focus on the process of ‘commissioning’ the provision of schooling Such a process is likely to emphasize the specification and achievement of ‘technical’ standards, rather than the less tangible qualities relating to the broader social and moral purposes of schooling. Are they privately provided commodities or, as Tinker (2015) proposed, should they rather be conceptualized as ‘public interest institutions’, with significant implications for ownership and for accountability based on ‘ethos’ and institutional qualities, not just short-term performance (Glatter, 2017)? That would imply a strengthening of the community voice in school governance to balance the increasing emphasis in England on professional skills in finance and management (Baxter, 2016;Wilkins, 2016)

Conclusions

Notes on the contributor