Cuasimercados, rendición de cuentas e innovación: analizando el caso de las Escuelas Libres en Inglaterra desde la perspectiva de los docentes
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5944/reec.42.2023.34408Keywords:
Accountability, Free Schools, innovation, School autonomy, Quasi-marketAbstract
Desde 2010, Inglaterra implementa una nueva reforma educativa bajo los principios del cuasi-mercado combinados con políticas de autonomía escolar y la rendición de cuentas. La reforma de las ‘Academies’ y ‘Free Schools’ produjo la transferencia a manos privadas de casi la mitad de las escuelas de Inglaterra (GOV.UK 2022), fomentando la competencia entre escuelas con la expectativa de que los proveedores privados generen innovación (Greany & Higham, 2018). Esta investigación de tipo exploratoria estudia tres ‘Free Schools’, un nuevo tipo de escuela del que se esperan innovaciones (DfE, 2010), analizando qué innovaciones se desarrollaron y cómo los docentes dan sentido y lidian con las demandas competencia, innovación y rendición de cuentas. Las innovaciones escolares son analizadas utilizando las categorías definidas por la OCDE (2014), mientras me apoyo en la literatura sobre implementación de políticas (Ball et al., 2012) para interpretar de las respuestas de los docentes sobre la innovación y la rendición de cuentas. Los datos incluyen documentos y sitios web de cada escuela, informes de inspección y entrevistas con doce docentes. Los resultados muestran la preponderancia de la innovación en las estrategias de marketing para atraer a los padres, pero son más limitaciones en cúanto al curriculum o las prácticas pedagógicas. Además, la autonomía de los docentes y las prácticas innovadoras están mediadas tanto por la cultura escolar como la posición de los directivos sobre las demandas de rendición de cuentas. De acuerdo con investigaciones previas sobre reformas cuasi-mercado, la rendición de cuentas con altas consecuencias actúa como una limitación central para la autonomía escolar y la innovación (Lubienski, 2009).
Downloads
References
Andrews, J., & Johnes, R. (2017). Free Schools in England (School Performance, Admissions & Capacity, p. 62) [Research Paper]. Education Policy Institute. https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/free-schools-england/
Au, W. (2007). High-Stakes Testing and Curricular Control: A Qualitative Metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07306523
Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065
Ball, S. J. (2017). The education debate (Third Edition). Bristol University Press.
Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203153185
Basset, D., Lyon, G., Tanner, W., & Watkin, B. (2012). Plan A+: Unleashing the Potential of Academies. Reform/SSAT.
Braun, A., & Maguire, M. (2020). Doing without believing – enacting policy in the English primary school. Critical Studies in Education, 61(4), 433–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2018.1500384
Brundrett, M., & Duncan, D. (2014). Leading curriculum innovation in primary schools project: A final report. Education 3-13, 43(6), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2014.975408
Cheng, A., Hitt, C., Kisida, B., & Mills, J. N. (2017). “No Excuses” Charter Schools: A Meta-Analysis of the Experimental Evidence on Student Achievement. Journal of School Choice, 11(2), 209–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2017.1286210
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns / Clayton M. Christensen, Michael B. Horn and Curtis W. Johnson. McGraw-Hill Professional.
Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective Sensemaking about Reading: How Teachers Mediate Reading Policy in Their Professional Communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170.
Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond Decoupling: Rethinking the Relationship Between the Institutional Environment and the Classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070407700302
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education (8th edition). Routledge.
DfE (Department for Education). (2010). The Importance of Teaching: The Schools White Paper 2010. Stationery Office.
Diamond, J. B. (2012). Accountability Policy, School Organization, and Classroom Practice: Partial Recoupling and Educational Opportunity. Education and Urban Society, 44(2), 151–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124511431569
Eyles, A., & Machin, S. (2015). The introduction of academy schools to England’s education (Discussion Paper No. 1368; Centre’s Education & Skills Programme, pp. 1–65). Centre for Economic Performance.
Falabella, A. (2014). The Performing School: The Effects of Market & Accountability Policies. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(70–72), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n70.2014
Garry, J., Rush, C., Hillary, J., Cullinane, C., & Montacute, R. (2018). Free for all? Analysing Free Schools in England, 2018. NFER and The Sutton Trust.
Gawlik, M. A. (2015). Shared sense-making: How charter school leaders ascribe meaning to accountability. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(3), 393–415. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-08-2013-0092
Glatter, R., Woods, P., Bagley, C. (1997). Diversity, differentiation and hierarchy: school choice and parental preferences. In R. Glatter, P. Woods, & C. Bagley., Choice and diversity in schooling: perspectives and prospects. Routledge
Golann, J. (2021). Scripting the moves: Culture and control in a “no-excuses” charter school. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691200019
Gove, M. (2010, October 15). Free Schools. Volume 518: Debated on Monday 15 November 2010. UK Parliament, London. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2010-11-15/debates/10111511000013/FreeSchools
GOV.UK. (2022). Get information about schools. GOV.UK. https://get-information-schools.service.gov.uk/
Greany, T. (2016). Innovation is possible, it’s just not easy. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216659297
Greany, T. (2022). Doing Things Differently in Order to Do Them Better: An Assessment of the Factors that Influence Innovation in Schools and School Systems. In D. Hung, L. Wu, & D. Kwek (Eds.), Diversifying Schools: Systemic Catalysts for Educational Innovations in Singapore (pp. 321–347). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6034-4_18
Greany, T., & Higham, R. (2018). Hierarchy, markets and networks: Analysing the “self-improving school-led system” agenda in England and the implications for schools. UCL Institute of Education Press.
Greany, T., & Waterhouse, J. (2016). Rebels against the system: Leadership agency and curriculum innovation in the context of school autonomy and accountability in England. International Journal of Educational Management , 30 (7) Pp. 1188-1206. (2016).
Hallett, T. (2010). The myth incarnate: Recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institutions in an urban elementary school. American Sociological Review, 75(1), 52–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122409357044
Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., Robyn, A., Russell, J., Naftel, S., & Barney, H. (2007). Standards-Based Accountability under No Child Left Behind: Experiences of Teachers and Administrators in Three States. MG-589-NSF. In RAND Corporation. RAND Corporation.
Higham, R. (2014). ‘Who owns our schools?’ An analysis of the governance of free schools in England. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(3), 404–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214522203
Hutchings, M. (2015). Exam Factories? The impact of accountability measures on children and young people. Ruskin Press.
Hutchinson, J. (2016). Inspections in England: Is there room to improve? (Accountability and Performance, pp. 1–27) [Policy Analysis]. Education Policy Institute.
Keddie, A. (2013). Thriving amid the performative demands of the contemporary audit culture: A matter of school context. Journal of Education Policy, 28(6), 750–766. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2013.768706
Ladd, H., F., & Fiske, E., B. (2016). England Confronts the Limits of School Autonomy (Working Paper No. 232). National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University. http://ncspe.tc.columbia.edu/center-news/school-choice-in-england/
Leadbeater, C., & Wong, A. (2010). Learning from the extremes. CISCO.
Looney, J. (2009). Assessment and Innovation in Education. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/222814543073
Lubienski, C. (2003). Innovation in Education Markets: Theory and Evidence on the Impact of Competition and Choice in Charter Schools. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 395–443.
Lubienski, C. (2009a). Do Quasi-markets Foster Innovation in Education? (OECD Education Working Papers No. 25; p. 72). OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/do-quasi-markets-foster-innovation-in-education_221583463325
Lubienski, C. (2009b). Do Quasi-markets Foster Innovation in Education? A comparative perspective (Education Working Paper, Issue 25, p. 72). OECD.
Meyer, H. D., & Rowan, B. (2006). Institutional analysis and the study of education. In H. D. Meyer & B. Rowan (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 1–14). SUNY Press.
Moore, A. (2018). The Affected Teacher: Psychosocial Perspectives on Professional Experience and Policy Resistance. Routledge.
NAO. (2019). Investigation into university technical colleges. National Audit Office. https://www.nao.org.uk/report/investigation-into-university-technical-colleges/
OECD. (2005). Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd Edition / Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and Eurostat (3rd Edition). OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264013100-en
OECD. (2014). Measuring Innovation in Education: A New Perspective, Educational Research and Innovation. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264215696-en
Ozga, J. (2009). Governing education through data in England: From regulation to self‐evaluation. Journal of Education Policy, 24(2), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930902733121
Pagès, M. (2021). Enacting performance-based accountability in a Southern European school system: Between administrative and market logics. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 33(3), 535–561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-021-09359-7
Parcerisa, L., Verger, A., Martín, M. P., & Browes, N. (2022). Teacher autonomy in the age of performance-based accountability: A review based on teaching profession regulatory models (2017-2020). Education Policy Analysis Archives, 30, (100)-(100). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.30.6204
Robertson, S. L., & Verger, A. (2012). Governing education through public private partnership. In S. L. Robertson, K. Mundy, A. Verger, & F. Menashy (Eds.), Public Private Partnership in Education. New Actors and Modes of Governance in a Globalizing World (pp. 21–42). Edward Elgar.
Seidman, I. E. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences / Irving Seidman (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy Implementation and Cognition: Reframing and Refocusing Implementation Research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2014). Cross-national policy borrowing: Understanding reception and translation. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34(2), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2013.875649
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia. A century of public school reform. Harvard University Press.
University Technical Colleges. (2022). A New Kind of Education. Our Mission. https://www.utcolleges.org/
Vasquez Heilig, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Accountability Texas-Style: The Progress and Learning of Urban Minority Students in a High-Stakes Testing Context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 75–110. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373708317689
Verger, A., Ferrer-Esteban, G., & Parcerisa, L. (2020). In and out of the ‘pressure cooker’: Schools’ varying responses to accountability and datafication. In World Yearbook of Education 2021. Routledge.
Verger, A., Fontdevila, C., & Parcerisa, L. (2019). Constructing School Autonomy with Accountability as a Global Policy Model: A Focus on OECD’s Governance Mechanisms. In C. Ydesen (Ed.), The OECD’s Historical Rise in Education: The Formation of a Global Governing Complex (pp. 219–243). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33799-5_11
Verger, A., Fontdevila, C., Parcerisa, L., Fontdevila, C., & Parcerisa, L. (2019). Reforming governance through policy instruments: How and to what extent standards , tests and accountability in education spread worldwide education spread worldwide. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 0(0), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2019.1569882
Waslander, S., Pater, C., & Weide, M. van der. (2010). Markets in Education: An Analytical Review of Empirical Research on Market Mechanisms in Education. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/5km4pskmkr27-en
West, A., & Wolfe, D. (2019). Academies, autonomy, equality and democratic accountability: Reforming the fragmented publicly funded school system in England. London Review of Education, 17(1), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.17.1.06
Wiborg, S., Green, F., Taylor-Gooby, P., & Wilde, R. J. (2018). Free Schools in England: “Not Unlike other Schools”? Journal of Social Policy; Cambridge, 47(1), 119–137. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.1017/S004727941700023X
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research. SAGE Publications.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
