Leaders can feel obliged to put the market position of a school above all else, even if it contradicts their professional values

The economic and regulatory incentives facing state schools in England are increasingly in tension with an inclusive, broad and balanced education for pupils.

Since 2010 the government has used the language of a “self-improving school-led system” to characterise its reforms, arguing that these are “moving control to the frontline”. Our research shows that this is a partial and idealised account: while some higher-performing schools are benefiting, the system as a whole is becoming more fragmented and less equitable.

Coalition education reforms ‘fuelled inequality in schools’ Read more

Schools have been strongly encouraged (and sometimes forced) to become academies, which are independent of local government, on the premise that they will be freed from red tape.

Yet schools and academies have faced greater regulation through national accountability, which has become more punitive. One bad Ofsted report and a school can be removed from its local governing body and handed to a multi-academy trust (MAT) – after which the school ceases to exist as a legal entity.

Fear of such a takeover and the wider consequences of being downgraded by Ofsted has led many schools to focus relentlessly on national test outcomes, to constrain teacher judgment and to narrow their curriculum. These pressures have combined with a chaotic process of centralisation. Attempting to manage thousands of academies directly from Whitehall, the government has created new regional commissioner roles, but their work can be in tension with both Ofsted and local authorities. This has left schools with minimal support as they navigate an endless churn of new policies.

How the drive to ‘empower’ our schools created chaos in classrooms Read more

Schools have also faced stronger incentives to compete for students and the funding that is linked to them. New “providers” have been encouraged to run academies and free schools on the premise they will pressure existing schools to improve. Yet school leaders can feel obliged to put the market position of their school above all else, even if this means making decisions that contradict their professional values.

We found that the school system has become more socially stratified since 2010, with schools judged by Ofsted to be “outstanding” admitting fewer children eligible for free school meals, while schools judged “requires improvement” or “inadequate” have higher concentrations of these children than previously.

Meanwhile, schools have been encouraged to work together in new teaching school alliances (TSAs), led by schools the government has designated as high-performing “system leaders”, but competitive and economic pressures have made this challenging.

The Observer view on the school system that does little to help our poorest pupils | Observer editorial Read more

Some alliances have collaborated to share expertise and to support vulnerable schools. But the need for TSAs to generate income has encouraged a focus on selling easily commoditised “best practice” knowledge rather than on facilitating deeper collaborative learning processes that support professional growth for teachers.

The economic motive is also clear in the development of MATs, which have faced encouragement to grow from government to achieve alleged economies of scale.

Our research suggests that this economic push for MAT growth is in tension with an educational argument for school quality. We found no positive effect of MATs on pupil attainment and progress overall, but we did identify differences by size: while students in smaller MATs (those with two or three academies) tended to perform better than comparator schools, pupils in larger MATs (those with 16+ schools) did worse, particularly in secondary schools.

The idea of a “self-improving” system in which schools collaborate on behalf of all children is appealing, but the reality is that market and accountability pressures are creating a system of winners and losers. Meanwhile, the litany of recent cases of corruption in MATs is blamed on individual maverick leaders rather than on a system that places economic incentives above equity, inclusion and professionalism.

• Toby Greany is professor of leadership and innovation at the UCL Institute of Education. Rob Higham is a senior lecturer at the UCL Institute of Education. Their report, Hierarchy, Markets, and Networks: analysing the self-improving school-led system agenda in England and the implications for leadership, was funded by the Nuffield Foundation and will be published by IOE Press on 3 July