Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Portfolio School Districts Lessons from America as England moves towards a decentralised education system This report is submitted to the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust as fulfillment of my commitment as a Churchill Fellow. It summarizes research carried out during a six-week trip to the United States in late 2012 funded by the Trust. The research aim was to study the charter school system and in particular the development of portfolio school districts, in order to bring back relevant lessons for local authorities in England. Jenny Buckle April 2013
2
Contents
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3
Overview of the Academies Programme…………………………………………………………………………….4
Different academy models…………………………………………………………………………………………………..6
The changing role of local authorities………………………………………………………………………………….7
Learning from portfolio school districts………………………………………………………………………………11
Cities snapshot…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….14
Proposed roles for local authorities…………………………………………………………………………………….15
Strategy and place planning…………………………………………………15
Ensuring choice and access………………………………………………….18
School autonomy versus accountability……………………………….24
School support and improvement………………………………………..29
Providing a voice for pupils, parents and communities………..33
Other roles and responsibilities………………………………………………………………………………………….36
Conclusion: What can England learn from portfolio school districts? ..................................38
Appendix A: Summary of recommendations….…………………………………………………………………..40
Appendix B: Proposed governance structure for the future education system…………………..42
Appendix C: Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………………………….43
Appendix D: Organisations with whom research was carried out……………………………………….44
3
Introduction
In 2012 I was awarded a Winston Churchill Memorial Fellowship to undertake a six-week trip to the
United States and research the education systems in Chicago, New Orleans and New York. By
travelling to three cities with a large proportion of charter schools, my aim was to understand how
to build a successful system of autonomous schools, as is the intention of the government in England
through the Academies Programme. This report is the summary of my research in each of the three
cities and provides analysis of my findings as well as recommendations for the implementation of
changes in England.
Unfortunately my time in New York was hampered by the arrival of Hurricane Sandy, so my research
into that city has been largely desk-based. In both Chicago and New Orleans I was able to spend a
great deal of time with school boards and other public organisations, schools, charities, universities
and other groups to get a first hand impression of how the system in each city operates.
As I work for a local authority in England, the aim of my research was to understand the role that
local authorities could play in a new system of autonomous schools. As such, my research whilst in
America centred on the role of the local school board, which is a broadly comparable organisation
with regards to its relationship with schools in its area. In particular, I was interested in a model of
management being used by the three cities where individual schools are viewed as part of a wider
portfolio with different models and operators for different schools. The idea bei ng that improving
the education system is not dependent on the state having a monopoly on schools and that
promoting different models and management can lead to system-wide improvement.
My trip was an incredibly interesting, valuable and enriching experience and I hope that the findings
contained within this report are useful. I would like to thank the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust
for making the research possible, all those that met with me during my travels or added to my
research in other ways, and my former and current employers for supporting the research.
Please note that all the views contained within this report are entirely my own and do not represent
those of my current or former employers.
4
Overview of the Academies Programme
2000
2002
2009
2010
Created by the Blair government in 2000 and based on City Technology Colleges, city
academies were crafted as a way to turn around the worst schools in England
They had a private sponsor to provide financial backing and help to change the long-term
trend of failure and they were removed from local authority control with an Academy Trust
established to run the school, granting significant freedoms.
The first academies opened in 2002, followed by more in the years after. The sponsors of
these early academies ranged from local businessman such as Harry Djanogly in Nottingham,
to the Archdiocese of Southwark, to charitable organisations such as the Haberdashers Livery
Company, which already operated a number of private schools.
Academies offered a different solution to turning around failing schools and whilst some of
the early schools were not successful, many were, with schools such as the Mossbourne
Community Academy becoming ‘poster girls’ for the programme.
From the early 2000s the programme continued to expand and by the 2009 school year,
there were over 200 sponsored academy schools open in England. Most of these had
replaced failing schools, although a small number were new schools in areas with few
educational aspirations.
Academies in 2009 represented a diverse offering, with an increasing range of sponsors
including higher and further education providers, local, national and international
businesses, public sector organisations and a growing number of organisations set up
specifically to run academy schools.
Whilst the academies programme made a significant impact in its first decade, it remained
relatively small scale and focused on failing schools. That all changed following the 2010
General Election; the Academies Act 2010 was one of the first pieces of legislation passed
by the Coalition Government and legislated for a huge expansion of the programme by
introducing a new type of academies, converter academies.
“We would like, in due course, for academies to become the norm. We trust teachers and
head teachers to run their schools. We think head teachers know how to run their schools
better than bureaucrats or politicians.” (Michael Gove 27th May 2010)
Converter academies are schools with a good track record that wish to become academies.
An Academy Trust is established to run the school but there is no need for a sponsor.
Many schools converted, with 1,920 converter academies open by November 2012. The
sponsored academies programme also gained momentum, with an additional 269
sponsored opening in 2011 and 2012.
Another change brought in by the Academies Act was the introduction of free schools.
They are similar to other academies but anyone can apply to open one. They are set up by
a wide range of groups to address demands for better educational options in local
communities. In 2011 and 2012, a total of 79 free schools were opened.
2012
5
Academies as a proportion of state secondary schools 2002-2012
605
2016
79
16 5
Breakdown of academy types - as at January 2013
sponsored academies
converter academies
free schools
studio schools
university technical colleges
6
Different academy models
Sponsored Academies
- Existing, poor-performing schools that the government identifies to
become an academy
- The government brokers a new sponsor for the school and this sponsor
then becomes responsible for running the school
- Sponsors can include businesses, universities, charities or other schools
but they must establish a charitable Academy Trust to run the school
Converter Academies
- Existing high-performing schools or schools that partner with a high-
performing school to become an academy
- They apply directly to government and there is a rapid approval process
- Although an Academy Trust must be established to run the school, there is
no obligation for the academy to have a sponsor
University Technical Colleges
- New schools for 14-19 year-olds backed by universities and employers
- Combine practical and academic studies specialising in technical subjects
such as engineering and construction
- Applications are made directly to government and must demonstrate
demand for the type provision being offered across the sub-regional
catchment area
Studio Schools
- New schools for 14-19 year-olds, backed by local businesses and employers
- They often have a specialism and deliver the curriculum in a practical way
with project-based learning
- Applications are made directly to government and must demonstrate
demand for the type of provision being offered
Free Schools
- New schools set up by a range of different groups including teachers,
parents, voluntary or community organisations
- The group must apply to government via a two-stage process – a proposal
and a business case – which must demonstrate clear demand for the
provision being offered
7
The changing role of local authorities
As the previous section shows, England is moving rapidly towards a system in which schools are no
longer directly run by the state. Each time a school converts to become an academy, it removes itself
from local authority control, meaning key functions and responsibilities are devolved to the
Academy Trust. This includes decisions over staffing, the curriculum and the operation of the school,
amongst others. Academies also receive their funding directly, meaning they have more control over
how to spend their budget and what services to purchase.
All academies in England are approved centrally and sign a funding agreement with the Department
for Education, meaning that responsibility for holding them to account also falls to central
government. Yet academies are also local schools that make up the overall provision of school places
within local areas, and local authorities still have responsibility for the overall adequacy and
sufficiency of local education provision. This means that although there is no formalised relationship
between local authorities and academy schools within their area, there is a need for cooperation.
Although many of the functions of a local authority do not apply in relation to academies, there is
still an important role for local authorities to play. This has been widely recognised with over twenty
reports published covering the issue between September 2011 and December 20121 Amongst these
reports there was unilateral agreement that the current support structure surrounding academy
schools is not enough and that there does need to be some form of ‘middle tier’, however there are
disagreements regarding what this should look like.
Most commentators agree that local authorities have and will continue to have some important
roles in relation to schools. Broadly these include: setting the local strategic vision; overseeing th e
provision of education; championing the needs of pupils and students; and ensuring the needs of
vulnerable students are met. These roles are established and many local authorities are exercising
these within the new context. However, as identified by a London Councils report, additional
freedoms such as the government sharing information with local authorities about free school
applications in their area and local authorities being able to direct academies to admit particular
pupils would help in the exercise of these roles2.
Where there is a greater level of disagreement is over the role that local authorities should play in
school improvement and the provision of support services. Whereas local authorities have
1 These reports were those that the author reviewed as part of thi s research. They were published by a variety
of organisations including the Local Government Information Unit, London Councils. Deloitte, the London
Mayor, the National Audit Office, the National College for School Leadership and the ISOS Partnership (commissioned by the Department for Education and the Local Government Association), amongst others. 2 London Councils Leaders’ Committee report, October 2012
8
traditionally been responsible for identifying and intervening in underperforming schools and
providing various support services, this is no longer the case. One of the key principles of the
Academies Programme has been to shift the responsibility for school improvement from local
authorities to schools themselves.
Much of the literature has focussed on the role of local authorities in school improvement and many
have argued that this is an area where local authorities need increased authority over academies. A
report from the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives outlined ‘championing educational
excellence’ as one of three key roles for local authorities going forward. In doing this local
authorities would act as a broker for improvement between schools, but would also retain some
oversight responsibility, including scrutinising schools and developing a local intervention protocol 3.
Similarly, a London Councils report suggested some additional powers should be granted to local
authorities, including issuing warning notices to underperforming academies and being able to order
a financial audit or investigation of a school4.
However not all commentators agree that local authorities should have as powerful a role as
previously. A proposed structure for the new education environment from the Roy al Society of the
Arts suggests that whilst local authorities should retain responsibility for place planning, admissions,
Special Educational Needs provision and the attainment of Looked After Children, they should not be
involved with school support or interventions. Instead schools would be organised into school
improvement groups and interventions would be the responsibility of academy chains (who would
bid to take over failing schools) and teaching schools. Interestingly, the RSA model also proposes a
role for ‘regional commissioners’ who would play an overarching role in setting a regional vision and
monitor and scrutinise educational performance including holding funding agreements with
academies and being responsible for a school improvement fund5.
The most dramatic proposal put forward so far regarding school improvement is that proposed by
Policy Exchange in their report looking at the role of academy chains. In this report it is argued that
academy chains are central to improvement and as such the system should be based on failing
schools being taken over by successful chains or run on a for-profit basis by educational
management organisations. The role for local schools commissioners in this model would be to apply
this rule to single schools or chains of two schools, whilst chains of three or more would be overseen
by the Office of the School Commissioner6
3 ‘Fi l l ing the Gap: The championing role of English councils in education’ – SOLACE, Apr 2012
4 ‘The Changing Education Environment in London: A schools’ perspective’ – London Councils, Oct 2011
5 ‘The Missing Middle: The case for school commissioners’ – The RSA, Jul 2012
6 ‘Competition meets Collaboration: Helping school chains address England’s long tail of educational failure –
Policy Exchange, Oct 2012
9
As illustrated so far, a wide variety of proposals have been put forward but no single model has been
chosen by central government. This has created a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the roles
and responsibilities of a new education system with many local authorities operating in a vacuum
and relying on personal relationships with head teachers of academies in their area. However these
relationships are informal and not all positive so as a minimum there is a need for the Department
for Education to set out a broad framework for how the new system should operate at a local level.
In a piece of research commissioned by the Department for Education, the ISOS Partnership found:
“The primacy of relationships in the new landscape carries the risk that the
effectiveness with which the education system operates in the collective interest of
children and young people could become too dependent on specific individuals
who are in post and who have developed effective ways of working together over a
period of time, and therefore too prone to disruption when those key individuals
move on and relationships have to be created afresh7.”
This quote comes from a piece of action research carried out with nine local authorities from
November 2011 to June 2012. The focus was on three key roles of local authorities: ensuring a
sufficient supply of school places; tackling underperformance in schools and ensuring h igh
standards; supporting vulnerable children. Rather than enter the argument about the role of local
authorities going forward, the research intended to provide a picture of how local authorities are
practically responding to the challenges caused by the academies programme. The practical focus of
the work makes it a very valuable piece of research.
Overall the ISOS report draws on some very positive examples of how local authorities and partners
are developing practical local solutions but it does raise some challenges that cannot be tackled at a
local level. In summary these are:
The varying performance amongst local authorities and the extent to which all local
authorities have the skills to adapt to the new agenda successfully. Also, the varying
capacity of schools in different local areas to assume a leadership role.
Where responsibility should lie for closing or federating schools where supply is
outstripping demand as there is no obvious point of accountability.
There is no mechanism for ensuring the performance of academy schools,
particularly standalone converters, is scrutinised and intervened in if necessary.
7 ‘Action research into the evolving role of the local authority in education’ – ISOS Partnership, Jul 2012
10
There is a lack of clarity over the criteria used by the Department for Education in
assessing the suitability of potential sponsors and moni toring sponsors’ performance.
Being more transparent about this would empower local authorities that are
commissioning new schools or looking for sponsors. There is also concern around the
involvement of the local authority in the dialogue about the choice of sponsor for a
school that is failing.
As teaching schools play a more and more important role in school improvement,
there is concern about what happens if a teaching school loses its designation.
There is considerable anxiety that current processes for escalating disputes about fair
admissions are not proving timely and that the education of vulnerable children and
young people could suffer as a result.8
The points outlined above are no surprise, they centre on the same issues that have been raised in
other research and reports and further demonstrate the need for some form of framework within
which schools, local authorities and other partners can operate. However, despite the ISOS report
being commissioned by the Department for Education, the identified challenges have not been acted
upon and there has been a seemingly stubborn resistance by the Department to outline how the
system will work in the future. In fact, there has been no published response to the ISOS research at
all from the Ministerial Advisory Group on the role of local authorities.
In light of everything discussed in this section and taking into account the rapid rate at which schools
continue to convert to academy status; it is evident that the current model is not sustainable in the
long term. Whilst local authorities can play a leading role in designing local solutions, they need
guidance about the parameters they are working in and support to exercise their new role. As such,
this research aims to propose practical actions that can be taken by local authorities and by central
government to work towards a sustainable and effective education system.
8 ‘Action research into the evolving role of the local authority in education’ – ISOS Partnership, Jul 2012
11
Learning from Portfolio School Districts in the United States
The dilemma that many English local authorities find themselves facing is si milar to that faced by
many school boards in the United States following the introduction of charter schools. Charter
schools were first legislated for in Minnesota in 1991 and there are now only nine US states that do
not have charter schools9. They are very similar to academies in that they are public schools that are
independently run, although each state has passed its own legislation so there are differences in
how they operate. Charter schools were originally developed as, and have been primarily used as, a
turnaround model for failing schools or school systems; in this sense they are most similar to the
group of sponsored academies in England.
There are many differences between the two countries, the primary one being that in the US it is
common for local school boards to have authorizing powers in relation to charter schools, meaning
that they are able to approve new charter schools and hold them to account. This is a big difference
as in England local authorities have no formalised relationship with the academies in their local area,
and no powers relating to approval or oversight. However, it is also common for there to be multiple
bodies that can authorize charter schools within a state, so in many school districts the school board
does not have sole discretion about which charter schools to approve.
Since the introduction of charter schools, school boards have faced similar issues to those being
taken on by local authorities in England. There have been questions over how to ensure the needs of
vulnerable students are met, how common standards are maintained across schools and how to
ensure there are the right number of school places available. One model that a number of districts
have adapted for use is that of the portfolio school district model developed by the Center for
Reforming Public Education at the University of Washington. This model is described as follows:
“School districts adopting the emerging strategy of portfolio management oversee
and hold accountable a supply of diverse schools that are managed in many ways—
including by charter operators, non-profit organizations, and the district itself.
Portfolio districts aim to provide parents with varied schools in every part of a city,
create new options for groups of students who are not learning in existing schools,
and continuously improve the overall quality and performance of the schools. They
explicitly foster an environment to attract talent and support innovation and school
improvement.”10
9 ‘Charter School Laws Across the States 2012’ – Center for Education Reform
10 ‘Baltimore and the Portfolio District Strategy’ – CRPE, 2012
12
The Portfolio School District model is based upon the seven following components:11
11
‘Components of a Portfolio Strategy’ – CRPE, 2011
Better options and a choice for all
Giving families a choice of schools is a key starting point for a portfolio management
approach. This is achieved in two ways: 1) student assignment policies and 2) continuously
improving the options by supporting and improving existing schools and opening new
schools, often by charter.
Autonomy: Key decisions get made at the school level
The portfolio model is based on the idea that school leaders should be at the centre of
improvement. To achieve this means giving schools as much authority as possible over
decisions relating to budgets, staffing and services. This principle should be applied to all
schools, not just charter schools.
Funding: Money follows the student
To have a system where schools are autonomous, it follows that budgets must be delegated
in order to give school leaders the freedom to use money flexibly. In addition, pupil-based
funding means that budgets are based on enrolment levels, which promotes equity amongst
schools of all types.
Talent: New sources of people and skills
Portfolio districts rely on a particular type of teachers and school leaders; those who have the
capacity and initiative to drive school improvement. To support this, schools must be given
freedom over hiring and firing in order to find, promote and support the best people.
Diverse sources of schools and support
In a portfolio district, the district is not the sole provider of schools or services to schools.
Other school operators and vendors of school services may be able to meet the needs of
students much more effectively and should be supported to do so.
Accountability: Require all schools to perform well, close those that don’t
With increased autonomy, comes increased accountability. Portfolio management is focussed
on results and performance measures are used to determine whether a school model should
be replicated, a school should get support, or a failing school should be closed.
Public engagement
Implementing a portfolio strategy creates conflict and requires widespread support. Many of
the features of a portfolio approach are controversial and district leaders must build a new
audience for public education reform and work to engage all stakeholders.
13
This research has adapted the CRPE model and tailored it to allow more targeted analysis of some
key areas. In order to remain focussed on the emerging role for local authorities in the education
system the areas looked at are those where local authorities already play, and/or will be expected to
play, a leading role. Therefore the adapted portfolio management model used for this research is
based on the following five headings:
Strategy and place planning
Ensuring choice and access
School autonomy vs accountability
School support and improvement
Providing a voice for pupils, parents and communities
Using these five headings, this report will summarise the work underway in Chicago, New Orleans
and New York and use examples of that work to set out the role that local authorities in England
could take on. Of course each of the three case study cities is taking a different approach to
implementing the portfolio management model and they all have different strategies, goals and
challenges. In addition, the legislative context in each state is different as is that in England so it is
hard to draw direct comparisons. However it is hoped that it will be possible to draw on both the
similarities and differences in each city as a context to work within. A broad summary of each case
study city is provided on the following page.
14
City snapshots
New York
1,041,437 public school students.
1,760 public schools, of which 158 are charter schools (9%).
Two charter school authorizers: New York State Education Department and the State University
of New York Charter Schools Institute. The New York City Department of Education was
previously an authorizer but no longer authorizes new schools, instead playing a supporting role
by recommending applications and identifying areas for new schools in the city.
Figures taken from: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/psc/csdirectory/CSLaunchPage.html
Chicago
404,151 public school students.
681 public schools, of which 96 are charter schools (14%).
Two charter school authorizers: Chicago Public Schools and the Illinois State
Charter School Commission. The State Commission can only authorize on
appeal, if an application has been rejected by Chicago Public Schools.
Figures taken from: http://www.cps.edu/about_cps/at-a-
glance/pages/stats_and_facts.aspx
New Orleans
42,030 public school students.
88 public schools, of which 66 are charter schools (75%).
Two charter school authorizers: Louisiana Board of Elementary and State
Education and the Orleans Parish School Board. The Recovery School District
supports the State Board by recommending applications and taking on
oversight functions following approval.
Figures taken from: http://www.coweninstitute.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/07/SPENO-20121.pdf
Inner London
392,095 state school students.
980 state schools, of which 85 are academies or free schools (9%).
Only the national Department for Education can approve new
academies. Traditional schools are overseen by one of 14 local
authorities but local authorities have no formal powers in relation
to the establishment of academies in their area.
Figures taken from:
http://www.education.gov.uk/researchandstatistics/datasets/a001968
10/schools-pupils-and-their-characteristics-january-2
15
Proposed roles for local authorities
1. Strategy and place planning
One of the most important elements of a portfolio school district is a clear local vision for the school
system of the future. This vision can vary from place to place; for example the Recovery School
District in New Orleans is following a strategy to charter all its schools whereas in Chicago, charter
schools are seen as one of a number of ways that the education system can be improved. In the
three cities visited in the US, the common feature was that the local school board, working with
partners, was responsible for developing the local vision.
Taking a strategic approach to the improvement of schools in a local area is essential, even more so
when the management of schools is decentralised as this creates a risk that the system could
become fragmented. Local authorities automatically had this role when they were responsible for
establishing new schools in their area but now find themselves with less direct control over the
provision of education. As such, it is vital that local authorities take a proactive role in working with
existing schools, potential new school operators and other partners to establish a coherent vision.
In Chicago, one mechanism for promoting a joint local vision has been to develop a ‘district -charter
compact agreement’, this document has been signed by Chicago Publi c Schools and by all the
charter schools in the city and sets out some key principles about how the education system in
Chicago operates. It ensures that all partners are clear on the direction in which the city is headed
and provides a platform for joint working. This is definitely an option that local authorities could
pursue in order to formalise the relationship with the academies in their area and promote a shared
vision and purpose, although naturally each local area will find its own model with regards to how
formal the agreement or compact should be and what it should cover etc.
In establishing a local vision, leadership is key and again this means local authorities have a clear role
here. As democratically elected bodies with a wide-range of functions it falls naturally to local
authorities to take the lead in working with partners to ensure there are clear goals and priorities for
the development of the local education system. In addition to the leadership role, local authorities
also have the evidence upon which development of new schools should be based through their
place-planning function. Regardless of how the academies programme alters the English education
system in the long-term, it is critical that local authorities retain their place-planning function to
ensure sufficient and high quality provision, much in the same way that local school boards identify
need and then decide whether that need should be met by a traditional school or a charter.
Place-planning is central to the success of the education system and local authorities have access to
the demographic data needed to do this as well as being able to ensure there is a link between the
16
development of schools and other infrastructure. England, and in particular London, find itself in a
position where 1000’s of new school places are needed over the next two -three years. In London
alone it has been estimated that an additional 90,000 places are needed by 2015. Whilst this
represents a huge challenge in terms of meeting that demand, it could be argued that it makes it
easier for local authorities to become commissioners of the education system. When there is
demand, it is certainly easier to approve the opening of the best new schools, whilst a surplus of
places makes this decision far more difficult.
In New Orleans the population of the city has been growing rapidly as the city recovers from Katrina,
as such there has not been a need for too much coordination between the two charter school
authorizers, The Recovery School District and the Orleans Parish School Board, as there has been
plenty of demand to make use of the supply of new schools. However the city has now reached a
point where a more strategic approach is needed as demand is no longer so high and having two
authorizers in the city means there is a danger of opening too many new schools.
In England, this situation should be able to be avoided as local authorities hold data about
population growth and can project where new infrastructure will be need based on housing
development etc. As such, to avoid a situation where supply does not meet demand, or vice -versa,
local authorities must continue to take the lead for place-planning. The other clear argument for
local authorities continuing to be the lead place-planners is because of their planning functions and
that they often own the sites and buildings that new schools need to make use of, as such they are
able to support a new school in opening by offering support with finding a suitable site in areas
where new provision is needed.
Identifying demand and planning for places is a clear role for local authorities to retain, but in order
to meet that demand there needs to be a good range of academy operators to choose from. The
slower growth of charter schools in the US has meant that this gap has been identified and a number
of so-called incubator organisations have sprung up. In all of the three cities visited there are
incubator organisations that act as a catalyst for potential charter school operators, supporting them
with their ideas and applications. This is particularly important in promoting diversity and choice
within the schools system as the incubators tend to work with new or smaller potential operators
who, without support, might struggle with the bureaucracy of setting up a school.
In England, free schools are seen as a way of allowing, parents, teachers or other groups with
community interests to set up a school, however, the growth of free schools has been tiny in
comparison to converter academies or sponsored academies. One potential reason for this is likely
to be a lack of capacity and experience meaning that they can’t offer the same reassurance as a well-
established academy chain. However, without free schools, the risk is that the system will come to
17
be dominated by big chains of academies, resulting in a limited choice. Although there is currently
one organisation, the New Schools Network, commissioned by government to support new free
schools, there are no other such incubator organisations. This needs to be addressed in order to
offer a greater level of support and stimulate a variety of provision across the country.
In Chicago, education reform was borne of frustration amongst the city’s civic community at the
poor education on offer in the city. As a response a program called Renaissance 2010 was
established in 2004 with the goal of building 100 new schools in the city by 2010. The Renaissance
Schools Fund was used to identify potential charter school operators, support them with investment
and then work with them beyond opening to ensure a return on investment. In 2010, the Fund
morphed into New Schools for Chicago which is now a strategic partner to Chicago Public Schools
that undertakes a variety of work to incubate new schools and support existing schools.
The benefits to incubator organisations are two-fold, firstly they can attract and distribute funding
from investors whilst offering confidence about how that money will be spent, secondly they can
support schools with that funding, meaning schools can focus on teaching not fundraising. Whilst the
role of incubators would be slightly different in England, where academies are equally, if not better,
funded than maintained schools, there is still a real market for organisations that can support new
academy and free-school operators. In reality, these would need to operate above local -authority
areas, possibly on a regional basis, to be effective but could offer a lot in terms of stimulating
provision and attracting investment in the education system.
Local authorities must continue to take the lead for strategy and place-planning at a local level to
ensure there is clarity about the direction the education system is headed. However, once that
strategy has been agreed, demand for places identified and there is a healthy market of potential
operators, the next step is to implement the principles of choice and equity of access. This is
arguably where it gets more complicated given the current environment in which authorities are
operating, and this issue is what the next chapter sets out to tackle.
Recommendations:
Local authorities to work with all schools in their local area to develop a charter or set of
principles for working together.
Local authorities to continue to be responsible for place-planning and to work with
partners to identify demand and stimulate the market to meet that demand.
Local authorities to work together to support the growth of incubator organisations at a
regional level and potentially to support those incubators financially to allow them to
stimulate new provision and support existing schools.
18
2. Ensuring choice and access
In addition to playing a strategic role in overseeing the provision of education in a local area,
authorities must also ensure that that provision offers choice and is accessible to all. Whilst cre ating
a more competitive environment between schools can help drive up standards, it can also result in
inequity for students meaning there is a real need for checks and balances to mitigate inequity.
There are two main dangers with a more market-based model for education, the first is that
successful models will be asked to replicate and if this is not managed carefully, the principle of
choice is lost as the education system will be made up solely of chains of schools offering the same
approach with no new providers able to enter the market. Secondly, as schools become more
autonomous there is less oversight and an increased danger of certain groups of students missing
out, particularly those with special educational needs or disabilities.
2(a) Ensuring choice of provision
A central role played by local school boards in the US is to apply the principles of choice and equity.
Probably the biggest difference between the US and England is that local school boards are
empowered to do this by being responsible for authorizing new charter schools in their local area.
This is fundamental to the portfolio school district approach as it allows school boards to decide
where schools are needed and what type of provision would best suit that need, thus ensuring that a
choice is offered to students.
School boards typically run an annual ‘request for proposals’ where all potential charter school
operators are invited to submit their proposals to meet the identified need. The authorizers than
consider these proposals, generally with outside, impartial support, for example from the National
Association of Charter School Authorizers, and make a decision on which applications to proceed
with. Compare this with the current system in England, where free school applications can be put in
directly to the Department of Education at any time and with no reference to the local authority.
Clearly there is a need for local authorities to be able to take on a more active role in approving
academies in their area to ensure that they are meeting local needs. As such, one recommendation
of this report is that ultimately local authorities take on the responsibility of being able to approve
new schools in their area. Many local authorities have proved that they are ready to take on this role
by taking a strategic approach to engaging with potential providers in their area, despite there being
no statutory provision for this. For example, Wandsworth Council has set up an ‘Academies and Free
Schools Commission’ with elected member, school and parent representation to take a strategic
view of school provision, including preferred potential academy and free school operators.
19
However it is recognized that immediately granting all local authorities this power would not be
practical. Many local authorities are not currently in a position where they would be able to exercise
it responsibly. One potential solution is for authorities with a proven track record to apply to
become approvers. This is a model utilized in Minnesota, where school boards have to meet certain
criteria and get Commissioner of Education approval to become authorizers.
Another safety net would be for the Department of Education to retain the power to approve
academies on appeal. However the risk with this is that standards between local authorities and
central government may vary. In Illinois, only local school boards were authorizers until 2011 when a
State Charter School Commission was set up to act as a secondary authorizer for applications that
had been turned down locally. There is a fear within Chicago Public Schools that this body may
authorize schools that they have rejected and this in turn may lead to Chicago Public Schools
authorizing schools that they may not have done previously as they would be authorized by the
State Commission anyway. Clearly there is a danger that the standards of authorizing could drop.
If local authorities were to become commissioners of academies in the same sense that school
boards are commissioners of charter schools it would give them the freedom to make choices about
what types of provision would meet the needs of their local area. However, this does mean that
different local areas could end up with very different looking education systems, as in the US.
Of all school districts in the US, New Orleans is the one most supportive of charter schools. However,
it is not necessarily the one most committed to a diverse offering of schools. There, the school board
sees the main aim of chartering as radically improving the quality of education, without taki ng
unnecessary risks. Putting this into practice means that the school board is in reality more likely to
authorize schools that are part of an existing network or that use a proven model. The argument
against this is that it removes choice by preventing new models of education from entering the
market. The counter to this is that although there may be less diversity within the system, pupils and
parents still have a much greater choice because of the improving quality of education options
available, even if many of these use a similar model.
A related argument could be made here as to whether the expansion of the academies programme
is improving choice. The huge increase in academies since 2010 is mainly down to large numbers of
converter academies and by and large these schools continue to offer the same education as
previously but they are independently run. Whilst there is nothing wrong with using the academies
programme as a way of empowering schools, it cannot necessarily be said that the recent expansi on
of the programme is offering a great diversity of schools.
20
The striking feature of the US system is that school boards are able to interpret what choice looks
like within their local area based on the needs of pupils. There is no reason why this couldn ’t work in
England, with local authorities working with partners to determine what type of models and
operators of schools best represent choice for their local area.
Taking the principle of choice one step further, in many districts, school boards are not the sole
authorizer of charter schools and so have to work in partnership with other authorizers to ensure a
good level of provision. For example, in New York there have been three authorizing entities in
operation: the New York City Department of Education, the New York State Education Department,
and the State University of New York. Although the New York City Department of Education recently
had its power to authorize new schools frozen, it retains a significant number of charter schools as
part of its portfolio.
New York is seen as a very positive example of a multiple -authorizer system, with the State
University of New York typically overseeing the highest performing schools which in turn spurs the
other two authorizers to improve. Potential school operators have a choice of authorizer but this
means that it is essential that authorizing practices are consistent between the authorizers, so that
one does not offer an ‘easier ride’. The chain of Democracy Prep schools that are widely regarded as
some of the top charter schools in New York have individual schools authorized by each of the three
authorizers in New York, but there are inconsistencies amongst the authorizers which creates
challenges for the network with regard to the operation of its schools.
In a system where multiple authorizers are allowed it is essential that there are safeguards in place
to ensure consistent and quality authorizing and that, if necessary, an authorizer can be prevented
from approving any more schools and focus on the current portfolio. An effective way of overseeing
authorizers is to set limits on the number of charters they can issue as this means they need to
demonstrate they are effective with a small number of schools before being allowed to expand the
portfolio. There is potential in England for other bodies to take on responsibility for approving and
overseeing academies, particularly top universities or relevant charities, but this should not be
rushed into and would need to be implemented within a comprehensive legal framework.
Another safeguard is to have an independent body that is available to support authorizers and
promote best practice to ensure only high-quality schools are approved. In the US, this role is played
by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) which is an organisation that
exists to ensure quality authorizing by improving the policies and practices of charter school
authorizers. As well as playing a national role by disseminating best practice, holding events and
producing guidance and model documents, a number of school boards also pay NACSA to oversee
their authorizing process to ensure quality and fairness.
21
In addition to NACSA, which operates at a national level, a number of states have set up authorizing
collaboratives ranging from formal organisations to more informal working groups. Indiana,
Colorado and Florida all have such arrangements and the work undertaken by the collaboratives
includes resource sharing, dissemination of best practice, development of shared practi ces and
resources and professional development. This reduces the danger of inconsistent standards amongst
authorizers, which is a particular risk if a potential operator has more than one choice of authorizer
to make an application to.
It may be that Ofsted are able to take on some of the roles that NACSA play and should certainly
take a lead on judging the quality of decision-making relating to new schools. However, there is also
a need for an organisation in England to support local authorities to approve new schools and to
disseminate practice and policy. NACSA is funded primarily by philanthropic donations and thought
should be given as to how an equivalent organisation could be set-up and sustained in England.
2(b) Ensuring equity of access
Under the portfolio school district model, the school board plays a pivotal role in creating a choice -
based system through its role as an authorizer. The logical follow-on from this is that having created
that choice, the school board needs to ensure it is equally accessible to all.
Admissions is a very interesting comparison area, as in many respects the English system is far more
advanced than the US. Until 2012, charter schools in Chicago and New Orleans ran their own
admissions process meaning that parents and students had to apply to each school that they wanted
to attend separately. In 2012, both cities implemented a common enrolment process which allowed
parents and students to apply for district-run schools and charter schools in a single process. New
York still has separate admissions arrangements for each charter school, although there is a common
application system for charter schools only developed by the New York Charter School Center.
Although academies must abide by an admissions code that applies to all publicly-funded schools,
they are their own admissions authorities meaning they have more freedom than other schools over
which pupils to admit. This has led to concerns that academies are able to manipulate the rules to be
more selective about the pupils they admit. In particular academies can choose their own catchment
area, can reserve 10% of places for aptitude in a specific subject or, if they are a faith academy,
reserve up to 50% of places based on faith. If the academy is a converter and the previous school
based admissions on academic testing, then this is allowed to continue.
In comparison to the freedom granted to academies, charter schools operate within a much tighter
set of rules. In most states, charter schools are open to all which means: no selective admissions; no
priority based on proximity; and no faith based admissions. Charter schools admit pupils based upon
22
an entirely random lottery system. Despite these tight rules there are a huge number of stories of
charter schools manipulating the rules to only admit the students they want.
Manipulation of the rules is much more likely to happen when charter schools run their own
enrolment process. New Orleans has reached an interesting point with its enrolment system as all
directly run schools and those charter schools authorized by the Recovery School District have been
brought together in a single enrolment system that requires one application and assigns pupils
based on an algorithm that ensures fairness. However, the small group of charter schools authorized
by the Orleans Parish School Board have not elected to come under the common enrolment system.
These schools are typically the most high-achieving in the city and can use certain methods to ensure
that only certain types of pupils apply to the school, for example holding information events in
upmarket neighbourhoods or producing lengthy and complicated application forms. This is a clear
example of the risks when schools are put in charge of their own admissions and reinforces the need
for academies to abide by the rules.
Overall, the English admissions system is more developed with local authorities running the
admissions process as a whole for all the state schools in their area. However, the system is also
complicated with lots of factors able to decide whether a pupil is admitted or not and this does
mean there is the potential for academies to exploit this. There is no doubt that local authorities
should continue to run the admissions process for all schools but it also seems there shoul d be
greater checks and balances in place to ensure the fairness of this process.
The academies programme up until 2010 was primarily focussed on improving the education options
in disadvantaged inner-city areas, so it went without saying that there was fair access to all. The
charter school movement started off in much the same way and whilst many charter schools are still
focussed on serving the most disadvantaged, there are also those that use their success to recruit
only the best students. There is a danger of something similar happening with academies as the
programme expands and a more diverse range of schools, including those serving predominantly
white, middle-class families, become increasingly independent.
Local authorities currently have some powers in relation to directing academies to admit hard-to-
place pupils but this is fairly limited. This should be extended to allow local authorities to direct
academies to admit any pupil, in the same way that they are able to with maintained schools. Thi s
would ensure that local authorities are able to do the best by the children and young people in their
area. In practice this power is likely to be used in relation to the most-disadvantaged pupils, for
example those with special educational needs, those who are looked after by the local authority, or
those from low-income backgrounds. Authorities would need to demonstrate that they apply this
fairly to all schools across the area by producing yearly reports or similar.
23
Of course the need for equity does not end once the admissions process has concluded. There is a
real need to ensure that students within academies have fair access to an education and again there
are worrying examples from the US of charter schools with particularly high attrition rates. How to
ensure students within academies are treated fairly will be picked up in the next chapter looking at
accountability and performance management mechanisms.
Recommendations:
Local authorities to be given the responsibility for approving new academies and free
schools in their area. The Department for Education would approve new schools on
appeal only and would mainly focus on scrutinising the decisions of local authorities.
Investigate how a new, independent organisation could be set up to support local
authorities in exercising this new role and encouraging common standards and principles
across the country.
Local authorities to be granted the power to direct academies to admit any pupil, as long
as this is done fairly across all schools in the local area.
24
3. School autonomy versus accountability
A key conflict that arises out of the portfolio management system is the commitment to giving
schools autonomy whilst also recognising that they must be accountable for their performance.
Getting the balance right is hard and there needs to be real clarity about how performance
management of academies is done. Whilst many of the performance management arrangements in
place in portfolio school districts are not perfect, there is still much learning to be done from the
models that are evolving.
The US and England are in quite stark contract when it comes to the models for performance
managing autonomous schools. In England, academies sign a funding agreement with the
Department for Education which is focused primarily on the funding of the school and other
procedural matters such as ownership of the buildings. In contrast, charter schools sign a charter
with their authorizer that includes the educational outcomes they will deliver and they are then held
to account by their authorizer based on that charter.
One of the biggest principles of the portfolio school district model is that all schools should be held
to account in a consistent way, as in theory it shouldn’t make a difference how they are run. This
principle is being worked towards in Chicago, where Chicago Public Schools is moving from four
separate performance management systems to one, operating on the basis that all schools should
be increasingly accountable, not just charters.
Whilst school boards each have their own performance management arrangements, these tend to
be centred on academic results, financial management and meeting statutory obligations, with clear
targets in each of those areas. Having a common and clear set of performance standards is central to
an autonomous schools system as it makes clear what is expected of schools in return f or increased
autonomy and provides a mechanism for challenge and support.
One of the concerning aspects of the academies programme is the lack of oversight of their
performance. Although academies are accountable to central government with regards to financial
management and other procedures, many of them are isolated in terms of academic performance.
With local authorities no longer playing an oversight role, their ability to intervene in poorly
performing schools has been taken away. Although England has a national programme of
inspections carried out by OFSTED, these inspections can be up to five years apart, meaning there is
the potential for a school’s performance to fall unnoticed.
So far, academies have performed, on the whole, very well in comparison to other schools.
However, as more and more schools convert, and more and more pressure is placed on a dwindling
resource within the Department for Education, there is a real danger that large numbers of
25
academies could begin failing. As such, it is imperative that a performance management system is
put in place which recognises that in an increasingly autonomous system, the accountability of
schools is of heightened importance. Building on the recommendations in the previous chapter, it is
recommended that the organisation that approves the academy should be responsible for holding it
to account using a common framework and intervening where necessary.
One conflict that has arisen in the US, and could also arise in England, is over the focus on academic
results with regards to the performance of the school. Many charter schools have at their centre an
ethos of providing a holistic education that goes beyond just academics and as such, it is difficult
when they are judged solely on test scores. In many ways it can discourage the charters that are in
the most deprived neighbourhoods and have come up with innovative programmes for their
students. For example the Arthur Ashe Charter School in New Orleans has a communal garden and
kitchen where students and parents are given lessons on cooking, nutrition and gardening. Whilst
Democracy Prep in New York places emphasis on students becoming active citizens and sends
students out on polling days to encourage adults to vote.
The difficulty in judging schools based only on academic performance is obvious, as it can discourage
charters from running extra-curricular programs. As well as being highlighted by schools, this was
also an important issue raised during a series of community events put on by the Orleans Public
Education Network where it was repeatedly argued that there needs to be recognition that schools
should offer a holistic approach to education. In response to this, the Cowen Institute at Tulane
University is developing a ‘whole school report card’ which takes this into account, however, how
easy this would be to implement remains to be seen.
The other big area for contention with regards to how charter schools are performance managed is
how well they meet the needs of more vulnerable students, particularly those with special
educational needs. This chimes strongly with the role of local authorities, which have a clear remit to
champion the vulnerable; including low-income students, those from ethnic minorities, those who
have special educational needs and those who are looked after by the local authority. In a
decentralised system it is more important than ever that schools are willing and able to meet the
needs of these children.
In the US there is huge amount of debate over how well charter schools meet the needs of more
vulnerable students. Generally charter schools are set up in deprived, often inner-city, areas and so
are actually catering almost solely for low-income students; in the schools visited as part of the
research the proportion of low-income students was generally above 90%. As such, charter schools
aren’t generally held to account specifically regarding the achievement of low -income students as
26
this is their typical student body. The same is broadly true for students from ethnic minorities.
However the real debate comes with regards to those with special educational needs.
Charter schools have very varying attitudes towards students with special educational needs; many
feel that they cannot meet the needs of those students and feel that they woul d be better educated
in other schools whilst other schools are very positive about meeting the needs of special education
pupils and particularly value the extra funding and resources this brings to the school. In general, the
US is quite weak in ensuring charter schools do the best by special educational needs children and
this is supported with evidence about the high attrition rate of charter schools, however, this is of
course not true of all charter schools.
Some portfolio school districts do include the achievement of special educational needs students as
part of their charter school accountability systems, although the priority that this is given in
comparison to other measures is variable. In New Orleans, the Recovery School District does
monitor the achievement of pupils with special educational needs but this information is not
included in the School Performance Score which is the state -wide measure of how schools are
performing. As such, it could be argued that the extent to which charter schools are providing for
special educational needs is not a top priority.
In England there are also issues around the achievement of more vulnerable students in comparison
to students as a whole, however local authorities are very aware of the need to monitor scho ols
based on how well their vulnerable students attain. Local authorities traditionally collect a wide
range of attainment data that is broken down by different characteristics including ethnicity,
whether the child receives free school meals, disability and whether the child is looked after.
Collecting this data allows local authorities to work with schools to improve the support for specific
groups of pupils where there are identified needs. The danger with the expansion of academies is
that there will be so much attention given to the academic improvement of the school overall, that
less focus could be given to the attainment of specific groups.
The government has recognised that the needs of vulnerable students can be better met and have
introduced measures to do this, for example giving schools extra funding based on the number of
pupils from low-income backgrounds. However, unless academies are better regulated, there is a
risk that this could be in vain. One proposal affecting children with special educational needs is that
under new legislation, children would have a right to seek a place at academies and as long as the
school is suitable, the academies would have to grant admission. This is an important step in
ensuring academies have the same responsibilities towards more vulnerable groups of children.
27
Despite improvements, vulnerable children still have a lower level of educational attainment than
their peers and because of this there needs to be a continued focus on meeting the needs of these
students. It is proposed that local authorities should continue to champion the vulnerable and
should be able to intervene in academies if there are concerns that vulnerable students are being
disadvantaged or excluded. In addition, the accountability system for academies should have a clear
strand relating to how well they provide for and educate disadvantaged children.
A strong performance system is a central pillar of portfolio management and if it is properly
implemented it will identify schools that are not performing. A key feature that distinguishes good
school boards from poor ones is how they respond to failing charter schools. The portfolio
management approach is dependent on school boards understanding that poor-performing charter
schools should be closed and replaced with better schools. This mindset is very different from the
English approach, where closing a school is very rare and is seen as an absolute last resort.
A big difference between England and the US is that charter schools are only grante d their charter
for a limited time, normally five years, and in order for it to be renewed they must have delivered
during that time. This is a fundamental feature of the charter school system and school districts
using the portfolio approach apply this principle to all schools. In fact the National Association of
Charter School Authorizers has published a practical guide that offers authorizers a step-by-step
process for closing a school. However even with a clear process to follow, closing schools can be
incredibly disruptive and so is a tough decision for school boards.
In 2012 the Missouri Board of Education took the decision to close six charter schools in the city of St
Louis, all run by the same charter operator. This decision affected over 3,000 pupils and cost over
$250,000 however years of financial and academic mismanagement left the board with little choice.
Whilst this is a dramatic example, it highlights the pressure placed on school boards to ensure
charter schools are well run and illustrates the tough decisions that must sometimes be taken in
order to work towards the long-term improvement of the education system.
This is a clear learning point for England, as without the ability to close academies, or more likely to
bring in new operators to run them, there is a danger that academies could be allowed to
underperform on a long-term basis. Whilst the disruption that closing a school brings is significant,
this should not be used as an excuse for not taking tough decisions on academy performance . As
such, it is recommended that following on from the proposal to grant local authorities the power to
approve academies, there should then be a contract put in place between the school and local
authority with clear performance measures and also a joint agreement about circumstances under
which the academy could be closed. This would promote greater clarity about what is expected from
28
academies and would also ensure that there is a mechanism in place for closing schools if this is
deemed necessary.
The other issue that arises from the performance management debate is to what extent chains
should be responsible for the performance of their schools. Chains will obviously have their own
internal accountability arrangements but this does not mean that those schools can opt out of a
wider performance management framework. In the US, a network charter school is accountable to
both its network and to the school board and this, if anything, strengthens their accountability. As
such a similar approach should be adopted in England with recognition that academy chains will
have their own arrangements and that these should be taken into account when assessing the
performance of chain academies. In addition, the performance of chains as a whole should also be
monitored at the national level so that any early warning signs of problems across a whole chain can
be spotted and interventions made if necessary.
Recommendations:
As a priority, a common performance management system is developed for academies
which takes into account not only the management of the school but the educational
outcomes it achieves.
As part of the development of a performance management system, the needs of
vulnerable students should be considered and measures included which ensure
academies are providing for these students.
Moving towards a system where local authorities are able to approve academy schools,
academies would be held to account by whichever organisation approved them through
a contract setting out what each party will deliver.
Local authorities should continue to champion the needs of vulnerable students and
should be given the responsibility of intervening when there is a fear that an academy is
not meeting the needs of those students.
Performance management of academy chains should be undertaken at the national
level to manage the risk of the failure of a whole chain of schools.
29
4. School support and improvement
One of the advantages of a portfolio management approach is that it empowers schools to take
responsibility for their own improvement. In a system where schools are both autonomous and
accountable, there is a greater emphasis on improvement as schools are more aware of the need to
deliver on their promise of a high standard of education. This is true both within the system as a
whole and also within networks of schools. Both the Noble network in Chicago and the KIPP network
in New Orleans highlight a culture of ‘co-opertition’ between schools – supporting and lending
expertise to one another but also competing to provide the highest standards of education.
A central feature of the portfolio management approach is recognising that school support and
improvement should not be monopolised by the state. In a traditional management system, th e
school board or the local authority would be the sole provider of both school improvement services
but also other support services including catering, cleaning and financial management. The portfolio
model is a big diversion from that idea and promotes a model where there are multiple providers.
There is some variation within states, dependent on whether state law allows charter schools to
become their own Local Education Authority or whether the school board remains as the LEA. If the
former, schools generally take responsibility for their whole budget and support services, whereas if
the latter, the school board will still have some duties relating to the provision of some services, for
example this could be special education programmes and support. None -the-less, all portfolio
management school boards aim to devolve as much responsibility and decision-making regarding
support services as is possible within the law.
Looking firstly at school improvement, one of the benefits of having more autonomous schoo ls is
that it promotes innovation and new approaches. It allows schools to figure out how to meet the
needs of their pupils and gives them the freedom to execute this. Building on this, it makes sense to
then encourage schools to share ideas and learn from one another, particularly those schools that
aren’t part of a larger chain. Like many other aspects of the portfolio management model, this
approach is not aimed solely at charter schools, but traditional schools too. In New York, the New
York City Department of Education organises its community schools into one of 55 networks that
exist to promote peer-to-peer support and improvement.
The approach in New York means that instead of being grouped based on geography, schools are
grouped with others that have similar approaches, each network of schools is then able to access
support from a small central team supporting that network. This creates a system that is much more
responsive to the needs of different types of schools and means that schools are able to shape the
support that they receive. This is a model that could work in the UK and could apply to both
30
academies and non-academies. This is already happening to some extent with schools partnering up
with other schools to become academies but anecdotally this isn’t always successful, with a number
of schools being partners on paper only.
A key recommendation here is that local authorities review their current structures for school
improvement and create more flexible structures that aren’t solely based on geography. Whilst
schools could not be forced to join these structures, it is likely that many would, particularly if they
are school-led. This is something that could be put in place now and then sustained as more and
more schools convert to academy status. Academies could be charged for joining an improvement
network on the basis that that money is then used to fund improvement programmes and targeted
support, but the emphasis must be on schools deciding how networks should operate, whether they
are a loose grouping of schools that occasionally work together, or something more formal. The local
authority would merely be a broker in this system.
The support network approach would not be a million miles away from some previous models. For
example the London Challenge saw underperforming schools in London receive support from
independent, education advisors to identify needs and broker support for schools, much in the s ame
way that the central office for the New York schools do. This approach was a success with sustained
improvement in schools across the city. However the key difference here is that the programme was
run by the Department for Education, as such, the same approach would not necessarily work now
as schools are more independent and likely to want to broker their own support. Local authorities
are in a perfect position to support schools in doing this by facilitating improvement networks.
In addition to the issues raised regarding the future of school improvement, the increasing number
of academies also means that other traditional support services – catering, cleaning, finance, legal
etc. – are being procured in different ways. There is widespread recognition that local authorities are
no longer the sole providers of these services and with increased financial control many academies
are choosing to buy these services from the open market. This is a positive thing as it means schools
can choose products and services that are the best fit for their pupils and it also drives local
authorities to improve their service offer to match what is available in the market.
As the support services market becomes increasingly diverse, local authorities will need to
continually assess and reshape their service offer to ensure it is fit for purpose. In doing this,
authorities should not be afraid of making the decision to withdraw from the market if there are
better providers out there and running the service in-house is no longer viable. This could also
present an opportunity for authorities to develop innovative ways of delivering services, and this is
already happening in a number of areas. For example in Hertfordshire ‘Herts for Learning’ is being
31
developed as a schools-owned company to provide improvement services, this model of school
driven services is likely to be one that is rolled-out in a number of areas over the next few years.
Accompanying the diversification of the support services market is a risk that schools could
mismanage budgets or make poor procurement decisions regarding services. Whilst there is an
argument that schools should be responsible for the decisions they make, the effects of bad
decisions will impact on pupils and so the local authority does still have some responsibility here. As
such, there is potentially still a role for local authorities to play in supporting some schools.
In New Orleans, the Recovery School District has an ever-decreasing number of direct-run schools
and as such has a very small central support team with the assumption that charter schools purchase
their services externally. This is quite a stark model and isn’t necessarily in-line with England where
in many areas academies continue to make the decision to buy services from the local authority.
Whilst charter schools in New Orleans are responsible for the purchasing of services, the Recovery
School District does recognise that for many operators this is new territory. As such, they offer
schools support with brokering services and with procurement processes. This not only supports
schools, but also means there is some oversight of the decisions schools are making.
For many charter schools, central support is redundant as they are part of a network with a central
office that acts in much of the same way as a school board with regards to support services. How
this works in practice is different within each network, for example the KIPP schools in New Orleans
each have special education teachers and social workers on site, with therapists employed by the
central office and then some services bought in externally, for exampl e psychologists and gifted and
talented programmes. As such, the model is not that different from a traditional model where the
school board provides some services on behalf of individual schools.
This raises an interesting point regarding how much responsibility schools actually have if they are
part of a network, which many are. However the flip-side to this is that having a central office to take
care of those decisions means individual schools can focus on teaching. The network charter schools
visited as part of this trip all felt that the key difference was that while the central office was
responsible for providing services or buying services, decisions were taken collectively with all
schools, for example the Firstline network in New Orleans involves all of its school leaders in
network-wide decision-making. This means schools are more empowered in choosing services.
Inevitably, as the number of academy schools continues to grow, so will the proportion of academies
that are part of a chain of schools. This is the case in America where charter networks are becoming
more and more common. There are two main reasons for this: firstly, individual schools find it much
harder to operate as they don’t benefit from the same economies of scale that network schoo ls do;
32
secondly; successful single-site schools are inevitably asked to replicate, so becoming a network. For
example Arise Academy in New Orleans is currently a very successful single-site school, but because
of its success is already under pressure from the school board to open another campus.
The danger here is that the English education system could end-up consisting solely of academy
chains, which in reality could be just as bureaucratic as local authorities running schools. Academies
that are part of chains inevitably lose some of the freedoms associated with being an academy as
many decisions are made chain-wide. This could impact on the principle of diverse sources of
support as academies that are part of a chain could be less-empowered with regards to school
improvement and the purchasing of services. Building on a model where local authorities broker
improvement networks, academies that are also part of a chain should be actively encouraged to
join these networks to allow them the opportunity to work with schools outside of their chain.
Recommendations:
Local authorities to investigate how they could broker school-improvement networks
amongst the schools in their local area, including those that are part of academy chains.
Local authorities continue to reshape the service offer to schools and are not afraid to
withdraw from the market if services become unviable.
Thought is given as to how much regulation there should be regarding the purchase of
services by academies, and whether there is a role for local authorities in offering a
procurement and brokerage service to schools.
33
5. Providing a voice for pupils, parents and communities
One risk of an autonomous education system is that some of the democratic oversight and
accountability offered by local authorities is lost. Academies remove themselves from many of the
traditional structures of a local education system and so there is a danger that transparency is
reduced, particularly when academies make decisions that the local authority would have made
previously. As such, a key challenge for local authorities in an increasingly academised system is how
to ensure pupils, parents and communities are able to participate in shaping the local provision.
Looking at the previous four chapters, there is a clear need for authorities to embed transparency
and public engagement as part of each of those proposed functions. However, in many respects it is
also a standalone function as ensuring pupils, parents and communities have a voice requires a great
deal more work than just consulting them on specific issues. In the US, public engagement has
typically been an area where portfolio district offices have been weak and they have been criticised
for making decisions with little or no engagement.
In New Orleans public engagement has been very patchy in the past with the use of appointed
advisory councils that were not very effective. Now there is a growing realisation that successful
engagement is important as when a new charter school is proposed generally the most opposition
comes from parents and communities who are not keen on new operators coming in and taking the
place of schools that have been in the neighbourhood for years. A new model now being used is that
of community councils where when a decision is made to turnaround a school, representatives from
the school and local community form a temporary council to influence the chartering process and
engage with potential operators etc. This means that the new schools tend to be more popular
amongst the community as they have had a voice during the process.
To create a successful local vision for schools, the community need to be committed to that vision.
Both charter schools and academies have received plenty of negative press so it’s not surprising that
parents, pupils and others from the local area are often against the local school being converted or
turned-around. However it is possible to work with the community to develop a shared plan, in New
Orleans the school board works closely with organisations like the Orleans Public Education Network
which undertakes a great deal of excellent public engagement work, putting on events and running
campaigns that allow the community to have a voice in how schools are run.
The danger in England is that because academies are authorised at a national level, there is limited
potential for engagement at a local level. There have been several high profile examples of
communities running campaigns against schools being forced to convert, for example that of
Downhills school in North London which was forced to become an academy despite 94% of parents
34
opposing this during the consultation process. This illustrates how much local opposition there can
be and why it is so important that the community are involved in the decision-making process.
Local authorities are well set up to ensure this local engagement happens as they already have
consultation structures in place and have a democratic mandate to act on behalf of the local
authority. As such, a recommendation is that local authorities make a commitment to championing
the views of parents, pupils and the communities both with regards to the local education options as
a whole and the options facing individual schools. How this is done will need to be different in each
area to reflect the needs of different communities.
In fact, it could be argued that local authorities in England are in a much better position with regards
to accountability than their counterparts in the US. In Chicago and New York, charter schools are
authorized by Mayoral-appointed school boards and in New Orleans the Recovery School District
(which although is not the authorizer, works on behalf of the authorizer) reports directly to the State
Superintendent of Education. So in general terms, the decision-making bodies in the US have much
more distant links to the community. Local authorities are accountable to the electorate that voted
for them and in that sense, have a much clearer mandate to work with the community to make
decisions on the direction of the education system in the local area.
However, responsibility for public engagement cannot fall solely on local authorities and is to some
extent as much a responsibility of the academies themselves. For new or take -over academies, once
a decision about an operator has been made that operator must then work with the local
community both prior to and beyond the opening of the school. For existing schools choosing to
convert to academy status, there should be an expectation that the school will engage with the
relevant groups throughout the conversion process.
One of the biggest differences between academies and maintained schools is their governance
models, as academies appoint the governing body and the only requirement is that there are at least
two parent governors. As such, they have more freedom than maintained schools, which are
required to have community and local authority governors to ensure a range of views are
represented. This could create issues relating to accountability and transparency, as there are
limited mechanisms for the local community to have their say in how academies are run.
Again it can be argued that the English system is in better shape with regards to the accountability of
individual schools due to all schools having governing bodies. In the US, most traditional
neighbourhood schools have no board or governing body and so the differences between traditional
and charter schools in this respect are huge. In England, because so many academies are converter
academies where the previous schools will have had a governing body, it’s likely that the make-up of
35
the new governing body will stay broadly the same. However this is an assumption and there should
not be complacency as there are risks associated with giving academies more freedom.
Whilst many academies will ensure there are a wide range of interests represented on the governing
body, they are under no obligation to do so. To reduce this risk, academies should be required to
appoint at least one community governor and one local authority governor to ensure that there are
suitable oversight measures in place and that there are different routes for parents, pupils and
communities to make their views heard. This would support the local authority in championing the
views of the community and would promote democratic oversight.
Recommendations:
Local authorities should consider how they can support parents, pupils and communities
in voicing their opinions and what mechanisms could be used to support this.
Academies should be required to appoint at least one community and one local authority
governor to their governing bodies.
36
Other roles and responsibilities
This report has focussed on a specific set of issues that impact significantly on local authorities and
those which local authorities have the most power to influence, although it has also been illustrated
that more than ever before the new education system will be one in which local authorities are
partners rather than leaders. As such there are other areas where responsibility lies largely at a
different level and so there is a need for a whole system approach. In summary, some of these are: a
per-pupil funding system; talent pipelines; curriculum development; the national policy framework
and oversight; and national engagement (eg. with unions).
A successful autonomous schools system is dependent on a sound per-pupil funding system. This has
been and continues to be a problem in the US where funding arrangements vary from state -to-state
and there is generally inequity between funding received by charters and that received by other
schools. Naturally this causes conflict between schools and prevents them from working in
partnership. As such, the Department for Education needs to be certain that schools funding in
England is equitable between academies and non-academies and that funding follows the pupil ; this
will ensure that all schools are on a level-playing field.
Similarly to funding, a national curriculum is important in ensuring that all schools have a similar set
of standards and that all students receive the same education. This is now recognised in America
where the majority of charter schools across the country are signing up to the Common Core
initiative, which for the first time is defining what students should be learning at a national level.
There is a balance between designing a national curriculum that means all students receive a
consistent education and building in enough flexibility to allow schools to have diverse approaches.
At each of the schools visited as part of the research, the freedom to design the curriculum was
evident with schools taking a range of innovative approaches. For example Noble Street College Prep
in Chicago has a broad language programme and offers students the chance to learn Russian, whilst
Arise Academy in New Orleans champions the value of the arts and has a full -time music
programme. Giving schools freedom to develop varied curriculums is important in developing choice
in the schools system but there is also a need to ensure consistency amongst the fundamental
aspects of the curriculum. As such, in the design of the new curriculum in England the government
needs to get this balance right and ensure it fits the needs of the new education landscape.
Talent pipelines are arguably the most important feature of a good education system as to have
good schools you need good teachers. In the same way that Teach for America is synonymous with
the charter school system; Teach First is likely to become closely linked with academies. A national
approach is important in attracting the best talent and the work of Teach First should continue to be
37
supported and expanded. However, it’s also important to note that many charter schools choose not
to use Teach for America due to the risk of them investing in the development of teachers who then
leave the school after two or three years, this is the case at Lafyette Academy in New Orleans, which
found that Teach for America graduates were not able to offer the commitment.
A national strategy for attracting talent is important, but individual schools must also be able to
attract and develop the right staff for their schools. The freedom given to charter schools over hiring
and firing is seen as one of the main reasons behind the success of charter schools. However it is
also controversial with schools being able to employ staff with no teaching qualifications, make them
work long hours and fire them with relative ease. This has also been one of the main points of
contention regarding academies and teachers’ unions in both countries are strongly opposed to
charter schools and academies.
However freedom over the workforce is important for both charter and academy operators, as
without it, many of the innovative teaching models won’t work . Most charter schools understand
the value of a good workforce and act on this, for example Arise Academy in New Orleans of fers its
teachers tenure and a $55k salary after three years as well as a rigorous development programme
based on coaching and evaluation. Competition for good teachers if fierce amongst charter schools
and the teachers are incredibly committed. In the same vein, academies will need to identify their
own strategies for attracting and retaining talent.
Throughout this report it has been highlighted that there is currently a vacuum of responsibility for
how the academy system is going to operate in the long-term. In many ways this is the overarching
issue and the one that needs to be tackled most urgently. In the same way that state legislatures in
the US have set out how the charter system should operate within their state, the government
needs to provide a framework for academies, local authorities, and other organisations so that there
is clarity about roles and responsibilities. Whilst uncertainty remains, it is virtually impossible for
partners to work together to develop education at the local level.
38
Conclusion: What can England learn from portfolio school districts?
This report has analysed the issues and opportunities facing English local authorities in light of the
move to a decentralised education system. Using American portfolio school districts as a model
against which to compare it is obvious that local authorities will continue to play an important role
as more and more schools become academies. Whilst the systems in the two countries are different,
there are a number of common features that help to identify where there is room for improvement
in the English system.
In many respects, the English system is well-equipped to deal with increased ‘academisation’. Local
authorities generally have a good grasp of place-planning, admissions, championing the needs of
vulnerable students and engagement with parents, pupils and the community, often more so than
their American counterparts. As such, the recommendations relating to these functions are mainly
focussed around strengthening the role of local authori ties and empowering them to undertake
these functions.
There are also areas where it is clear that change is needed. Authorities need to embrace a new role
with regards to the provision of support services and school improvement, much in the same way
that school boards in New Orleans and New York have. There also needs to be a change in thinking
about how the market is stimulated and incubator organisations with similar remits to those in
Chicago and New Orleans should be supported to work with new providers.
A clear concern raised by this report is the current lack of clarity regarding the performance
management of academies. This needs to be addressed as a priority as the roles and responsibilities
relating to the oversight of academies are not obvious and as such the system is lacking
accountability. Local authorities have a greater role to play here and whilst they can take some
positive action towards this, it requires leadership from central government. Until there is a clear
performance management system in place, there is an ever-increasing risk that failing or
underperforming academies will not be spotted and will not receive the support they require.
The most radical proposal in this report is that local authorities should be given the responsibility of
approving new academies within their local area. This principle has worked across the US and has
allowed school boards to embrace a new approach to the management of schools. Giving local
authorities this responsibility would mean that they would have a portfolio of schools to manage but
not run. This would be the key difference from the previous system and would prevent a return to
the bureaucracy of the past as local authorities would have no choice but to embrace a new role.
39
If all of the above can be combined then local authorities will see themselves take on a new role that
will allow for a sustainable move towards a system where all schools are academies. Research into
the role of the US school boards that have adopted a portfolio management approach has proved
that local authorities in England have the skills, capacity, structures and experience to adopt a similar
model. This change in mindset needs to take place alongside a number of other changes at the
national, regional and school level to build a system that will work smoothly into the long-term.
England is too far down the path of academisation to turn back and as such debate should not focus
on whether the principle of a decentralised education system is right or wrong, but more on what
needs to be done to ensure the system works for the children and young people it serves. Local
authorities have a duty towards those children and young people and most are doing their best to
exercise it, however unless a more robust system surrounding academi es is developed, this will
become nigh on impossible to do.
40
Appendix A: Summary of recommendations
Strategy and place planning:
Local authorities to work with all schools in their local area to develop a charter or set of
principles for working together.
Local authorities to continue to be responsible for place-planning and to work with partners
to identify demand and stimulate the market to meet that demand.
Local authorities to work together to support the growth of incubator organisations at a regional level and potentially to support those incubators financially to allow them to
stimulate new provision and support existing schools.
Ensuring choice and access:
Local authorities to be given the responsibility for approving new academies and free
schools in their area. The Department for Education would approve new schools on appeal
only and would mainly focus on scrutinising the decisions of local authorities.
Investigate how a new, independent organisation could be set up to support local
authorities in exercising this new role and encouraging common standards and principles
across the country.
Local authorities to be granted the power to direct academies to admit any pupil, as long as
this is done fairly across all schools in the local area.
School autonomy versus accountability:
As a priority, a common performance management system is developed for academies
which takes into account not only the management of the school but the educational
outcomes it achieves.
As part of the development of a performance management system, the needs of
vulnerable students should be considered and measures included which ensure
academies are providing for these students.
Moving towards a system where local authorities are able to approve academy schools,
academies would be held to account by whichever organisation approved them through
a contract setting out what each party will deliver.
Local authorities should continue to champion the needs of vulnerable students and
should be given the responsibility of intervening when there is a fear that an academy is
not meeting the needs of those students.
Performance management of academy chains should be undertaken at the national
level to manage the risk of the failure of a whole chain of schools.
41
School support and improvement:
Local authorities to investigate how they could broker school-improvement networks
amongst the schools in their local area, including those that are part of academy chains.
Local authorities continue to reshape the service offer to schools and are not afraid to
withdraw from the market if services become unviable.
Thought is given as to how much regulation there should be regarding the purchase of
services by academies, and whether there is a role for local authorities in offering a
procurement and brokerage service to schools.
Providing a voice for pupils, parents and communities:
Local authorities should consider how they can support parents, pupils and communities
in voicing their opinions and what mechanisms could be used to support this.
Academies should be required to appoint at least one community and one local authority
governor to their governing bodies.
42
Local authorities -
Work with partners to develop the local education vision
Lead on school place planning and approve new academies to meet
demand – including working with and supporting incubator organisations
Oversee admissions to all schools
Hold academies to account and champion the needs of vulnerable
students – including intervening where necessary
Broker peer-to-peer support networks for academies
Provision of some support services on a traded basis.
Provide mechanisms for pupils, parents and communities to engage
Central government -
Develop the national policy framework relating to academies
Approve academies by exception
Manage a pupil -based funding system
Development of national talent pipelines
Work with local authorities to develop a performance management model
Hold national academy chains to account and intervene where necessary
Revise and implement the National Curriculum
Engage with stakeholders on a national level – particularly unions
Diverse market of support
service providers – sell services
on a traded basis to academies
and academy chains
Ofsted –
Continue to carry out regular
inspections of schools
Oversee the decisions on academy
applications to promote consistency
Academy chains
Single-site
academies
Incubator organisations –
stimulate the market and
support new providers
All academies able to join peer-to-peer support
networks brokered by local authorities
Longer-term –
Potentially grant
responsibility for
approving academies to
organisations other than
local authorities – universities, charities etc.
New independent organisation to
promote consistency and develop
robust academy approval processes
Appendix B: Proposed
governance structure
43
Appendix C: Bibliography
‘Accountability in Action: A comprehensive guide to charter school closure’ – National Association of Charter
School Authorizers, 2011
‘Action research into the evolving role of the local authority in education’ – Isos Partnership, 2012
‘Charter School Laws across the States 2012’ – Center for Education Reform, 2012
‘Competition Meets Collaboration: Helping school chains address England’s long tail of educational failure’ –
Policy Exchange, 2012
‘Fi l l ing the Gap: The championing role of English councils in Education’ – Society of Local Authority Chief
Executives, 2012
‘Local Authority, National Impact: The role for local authorities in the free schools and academies policy’ –
Deloitte, 2011
‘Multiple Choice: Charter school performance in 16 states’ – Center for Research on Education Outcomes,
2009
‘New Orleans-Style Education Reform: A guide for cities’ – Brinson, Boat, Hassel and Kingsland, 2012
‘Portfolio School Districts for Big Cities: An interim report’ – Center on Reinventing Public Education, 2009
‘Principles and Standards for Quality School Authorizing’ – National Association of Charter School Authorizers
‘The Evolution of School Support Networks in New York City’ – Center on Reinventing Public Education, 2012
‘The Growth of Academy Chains: Implications for leaders and leadership’ – National College for School
Leadership, January 2012
‘The Mayor’s Education Enquiry – Going for Gold: Turning achievement into excellence in London’s schools’ –
The Mayor of London, 2012
‘The Missing Middle: The case for school commissioners’ – Royal Society for the Arts, 2012
‘The Schools Report: Defining the future role of London local authorities in education’ – London Councils, 2012
‘The State of Charter School Authorizing 2011’ – National Association of Charter School Authorizers, 2012
‘The State of Charter Schools: What we know – and what we do not – about performance and accountability’ –
Center for Education Reform, 2011
‘The State of the New York Charter School Sector’ – New York City Charter School Center, 2012
‘The State of Public Education in New Orleans: 2012 report’ – Cowen Institute for Public Education Initiatives,
2012
‘Turning around Low-Performing Schools in Chicago’ – University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School
Research, 2012
‘Unleashing Greatness: Getting the best from an academised system’ – the Academies Commission, 2013
44
Appendix D: Organisations with whom research was carried out
Chicago:
New Schools for Chicago
Chicago Public Schools
Illinois State Charter School Commission
Illinois Network of Charter Schools
National Association of Charter School Authorizers
Noble Street College Prep
New Orleans:
The Recovery School District
Orleans Parish School Board
Orleans Public Education Network
The Cowen Institute
Louisiana Association of Public Charter Schools
New Schools for New Orleans
KIPP Believe College Prep
George Washington Carver High School
Arise Academy Elementary Charter School
Lafayette Academy Charter School
Arthur Ashe Charter School
New York:
Research carried out remotely with the help of the following organisations:
New York City Department of Education
New York State Education Department
State University of New York Charter School Center
New York City Charter School Center
*In addition to the above the research trip also included attending the National Association of
Charter Schools annual conference – a three-day opportunity to hear from and work with those
representing charter school authorizers and other organisations from across the US.
