Finding a Balance: Local Autonomy and State Involvement in Alternative Provisions of Educational Choice

Abstract

Academy schools have become a prominent policy initiative in the UK. By creating self-governing bodies with increased over the educational man- date and financial management of a particular school, the hope is that the increased autonomy will correlate to greater educational innovation and improved student outcomes, particularly for those who are most disadvantaged. Louise Bamfield correctly identifies an ambiguity in the use of the term freedom that is employed in the political rhetoric to promote the growth and opportunities that are espoused in these Academies. Specifically, Bamfield provides an interesting distinction between as non-interference and non-dependence and argues that in order for Academy Schools to provide the level of autonomy that it is intended to provide, a more robust notion of non-dependence must be considered. I wish to take the opportunity to push Bamfield's conclusions further and consider two points. First, I contend that the notion of non-dependence, although not explicitly articulated in policy documents, has not been a major consideration in the implementation of various provisions of alternative programs in American and Canadian charter schools, Swedish free schools, or the UK academy schools. Second, I wish to challenge Bamfield's more demanding notion of as non- dependence and contend that this would be an undesirable stance to take if we wish to provide safeguards for the quality of provision that students receive in alternative school provisions.