Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Parental engagement in multi-academy trusts’ (MATs) governance structures and activities is contemporarily constructed in policy as mattering less than engagement by professionalised governors and trustees, and in much of the literature as deficient for operationalising MAT accountability in a public education system. This article problematises the role of local parental engagement in MATs in a depoliticised context to explore an alternative conceptualisation responding to this democratic deficit. A single case study combined with narrative inquiry sought experience beyond the meta-narrative and Gunter and Ribben's conceptual frame of ‘knowledge, knowers and knowing’ provided a lens for interpreting data. Analysis identified that parental engagement was seen as a commodity in the justification of professional's decisions and an opportunity to normalise parent thinking and practices when engaging with the academy trust. Analysis of parents’ stories provided an alternative conceptualisation of parental engagement recognising their agency and contribution to knowledge production through their civic expertise.

Keywords

parental engagement school governance Multi-academy trusts knowledge production civic knowledge

Introduction

This article seeks to explore the value of civic knowledge offered by local parents in multi-academy trusts (MATs). For the purpose of this Article, civic knowledge is understood as that knowledge derived from being a citizen embodied within that academy's community.

Policy has constructed parental engagement in MATs' governance structures and activities as mattering less than engagement by professionalised governors, and in much of the literature as deficient for operationalising MAT accountability in a public education system (Young, 2017). In England, the MAT is a group of independent publicly funded schools, known as academies, under a single trust (Baxter and Cornforth, 2019). Academies, similar to USA Charter Schools, Swedish Free Schools and Australian Independent Public Schools originated under New Labour policy. The Sponsored Academies Programme aimed to address educational standards, removing schools from local government control, and enabling sponsors to govern chains of schools, now known as MATs. The Coalition Government in 2010 reimagined the Academies Programme as the dominant model for the delivery of education in England (Courtney, 2015). The Academies Act 2010, subsequent White Papers (see 2016, 2022a) and DfE guidance demanded corporate entrants into school governance in England and the establishment of MATs, removing Local Authorities as a provider. These concretised market ideologies replaced democratic civic knowledge and engagement. A discourse of 'effective' governance (DfE, 2020) has created a new technocratic epistocracy (Wilkins, 2019) in the governance of schools. This is ensuring the normative practices of the markets, are underpinned by rationalism where privileged knowledge domains ensure consensus in defining ‘the problem’ and the response (Gunter, 2016; Wilkins and Gobby, 2022) This depoliticisation of public education (Courtney and McGinity, 2020; Gunter, 2019), in England, as in other Western economies, has led to the marginalising of parents and civic knowledge with both identified as an object of MAT activity (CSTUK, 2021).

The UK Government's drive for all schools to be members of MATs (DfE 2022a) is securing this governance structure as a key strategy for the delivery of education in England. This continues the geographical and metaphorical distancing between those that govern schools and the local community (Baxter and Cornforth, 2019) further entrenching a loss of local voice in MAT governance.

This article problematises the role of local parental engagement in MATs in a context of depoliticisation through the privileging of ‘professional’ school governance and objectification of the civic and parents. It explores an alternative conceptualisation of parental participation which responds to this democratic deficit.

School governance

School governance policy in England in the 1980s saw parents positioned as stakeholder governors (Ranson, 2008) with some delegation of responsibilities. However, the ‘professionalisation’ of school governance has led to ‘managerial-bureaucratic duties which satisfy narrow utilitarian measures of accountability’ (Olmedo and Wilkins, 2017: 580) for this role rather than one of the critical citizen. This ‘professionalisation’ has shaped dialogue as actionable according to economic and risk indicators (Wilkins, 2019; Wilkins and Gobby, 2022), which ‘actively subsumes normative judgements to produce consensus’ (Kulz, 2021: 70) with the school re-imagined as a business enterprise requiring Trusts to secure their brand (Hetherington, 2022). As a result, parents are divided: those with or without the skills for school governance (Wilkins, 2015).

Trusts are expected to ensure that ‘mechanisms are in place to engage meaningfully with all parents and carers,’ and ‘show how those views have influenced their decision-making’ (DfE, 2020: 21). However, current school governance reforms arguably polarise the practice of school governance and democracy, with local communities ‘marginalised’ creating a democratic deficit (Wilkins, 2019). The ‘thick’ understandings of democracy described by Riddle and Apple (2019: 2), concerned with participation as critical citizens in the collective good, is contested against a ‘thin’ market-orientated version of consumerism with education defined as a tool for limited economic need by those given a voice.

With the growth of MATs, democratic control processes have been challenged further (Hodgson and Spours, 2012) through corporatisation and depoliticisation (Courtney and McGinity, 2020; Gunter, 2019) questioning the legitimacy of accountability (Woods and Simkins, 2014). A centrally managed form of ‘localism’ focused on results outcomes (Hodgson and Spours, 2012) and risk management arguably lacks the mechanisms or requirements for the empowered space of school governance to engage with the public space (Erman, 2013; Mansbridge et al., 2012), where parents can participate in decision-making. The ensconced localism of professional school governance described by Hetherington and Forrester (2022) is perhaps a disciplinary practice that furthers the loss of civic knowledge.

Knowledge production

Knowledge is a term used to express the idea of knowing a field of knowledge and types of knowledge (see Ball, 2013; Foucault, 1970) such as the knowledge of the markets. However, knowledge exists through systems of power (Foucault, 1980). This power/knowledge shapes our thinking through discourses that discursively create regimes of truth (Foucault, 1970). In this way, some knowledge is privileged as ‘common sense’, whilst derision (Ball, 2013) is applied to marginalise other knowledge, thus shaping our thinking. In this way, the professionalisation of school governance based on market expertise has been shaped through power/knowledge, with parental participation reshaped as consumerism rather than as citizenship.

Hence, ‘expertise’ is positioned to construct knowledge. From a functionalist stance, knowledge claims are based on a perspective that constructs a world as an object where defects can be identified and remedied ‘once the observable and measurable dysfunctions or barriers to success have been removed’ (McGinity et al., 2022:5). However, understanding what is spoken and from what position, alongside recognition of the positions of others mediating knowledge, makes visible its construction and meaning (Gunter and Ribbins, 2003) and power processes (Gunter et al., 2013).

By understanding how power is exercised in the formation of knowledge, we begin to understand not only knowledge but also who is recognized as the knowers and identify themselves as this (Gunter et al., 2013). The identification of places where knowing occurs and the practices support an understanding of ‘what counts as knowledge’ (Gunter and Ribbins, 2003).

Therefore, to understand the rationale behind knowledge production when school governance engages with parents requires an understanding of power and dominance that normalises how we both do and be in the world (Gunter, 2006). Parents mostly are depicted as followers or consumers not knowledge producers (see Gunter and Ribbins, 2003). Those individuals in roles of ‘professional’ school governance are identified as the knowers with access to the places and practices of knowing.

Parent participation

The marketisation of schooling has changed the nature of parent subjectivity and their participation in schools, where the privileging of market measures has sought to change both the nature and outcomes of parent participation (Smith, 2021). Although participation is a term that is shifting signifier, for the purpose of this article I am defining it as one of shared control, where issues of equity and the exercise of power are visible and linked to wider democratic concerns (Auerbach, 2010).

Policy has called for parents to engage with the marketising of education as consumers and some, with valued market skills, to act as governors and even producers through the Free Schools programme in England (Olmedo and Wilkins, 2017). Parents as consumers, rather than citizens with collective responsibility, leads to school governance providing a ‘managerial framing of participation’ (Newman, 2001: 140) mostly identifying parents as a homogeneous consumer group. Participation may suggest the promise of greater opportunity for a plurality of voices to be heard, but often it is a process of collusion, reinforcing power relations and inequities (Anderson, 1998) silencing those whose knowledge and recognition of value is not the markets (Gewirtz et al., 1994).

The instrumental approach that dominates how knowledge is understood currently in education in England and many western countries identifies parent participation as valuable for improving measurable outcomes and quantifiable statistics of satisfaction (Green, 2017). Consequently, a deficit model is created describing those parents who do not conform to the dominant normative behaviours of the consumer (Reay and Ball, 1997) or supporter of school activity described by Harris and Goodall (2008) as ‘good’ parenting. This drives schools to seek the participation of parents seen as peripherally engaged (Hanafin and Lynch, 2002) with the school and its activities to distinguish the school in the edu-market (Green, 2017). However, often this participation is through interventions designed to ‘address’ what are seen as ‘deficits’ decided by the organisation which Auerbach (2010: 728) posits is participation seeking to ‘train, contain or manage parents in line with school agendas’. In fact, this objectification of parents further marginalises their knowledge as citizens.

Research design

This study adopted a socially critical epistemological stance. Through voices of lived experience, it explores the power distribution (Raffo et al., 2010) seeking to understand the role of parental participation for decision-making in school governance.

This study was a single case study combined with a narrative inquiry approach (Yin, 2014) enabling the voices and knowledge of those not in professional positions to be heard above the meta-narrative (Clandinin and Connelly, 2000). Through this combined approach, the experiences, in this case, of a trustee, the principal and three parents from Town Academy were explored, to understand parent participation in decision-making.

This article is exploring two of the research questions, which were:

How do a trustee, the principal and parents perceive the nature and scope of parental participation?

How do parents describe their participation in decision-making?

The case, Town Academy, joined Academies Trust as a ‘coerced’ conversion. Academies Trust has fifteen schools across the south of England. The Local Governing Board, initially delegated as advisory, was replaced by a Regional Board with a remit to oversee the risk register for its academies with accountability to the Trust Education Board.

Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with participants (the Principal and Trustee) from the empowered space to generate perceptions of the role of parent participation and their sense-making through examples (Punch, 2014).

Anepisodic narrative interview was undertaken with parents positioning them as the expert of themselves in an alternative empowered space where their voices could be heard (Clandinin and Connelly, 2000). Their stories not only explored the nature and scope of parent participation but also exposed the relations of power and whose knowledge was privileged.

Analysis methods

Analysis used an adapted approach of Mauther and Doucet's (1998) ‘Voice-centred Relational Method’ using 3 readings:

Reading 1: overall plot and character, rereading to identify the researcher's emotional response to support reflexivity;

Reading 2: relationships;

Reading 3: cultural and social context.

This was useful in identifying and locating the characters and the plots. Gunter and Ribbens's conceptual frame of knowers, knowing and knowledge provided an analytical lens to interpret text exposing the power dynamics and rationale.

Analysis and discussion

The analysis established that power distribution underpinned perceptions and stories of parent participation in decision-making at Town Academy. Generated data enabled the interpretation of perspectives from the empowered space and the local civic public space. The empowered space is understood as the space where those with power can exercise this in decision-making for the academy. The civic public spaces are understood as spaces where local parents can engage in knowledge production for governance in MATs.

Five themes were identified to conceptualise this knowledge production. These were:

Establishing calculability

Knowledge shaping

Relationship management

Illusion of power

Valuing civic knowledge

Perspectives from the empowered space

The principal and trustee as participants offered perspectives from the empowered space that presented parent participation as calculable; knowledge shaping and relationship management.

Calculability

Parent participation was described as ‘a two-way dialogue that can take various forms’ (Trustee). Those forms included satisfaction feedback surveys which ‘were used locally to take a sort of temperature of the parent body’ (Trustee) contesting the relation of power suggested in a ‘two-way dialogue’. Here, parent participation offered calculable responses aligning with Green's (2017) premise of approaches that are measurable and easily scalable. Arguably these approaches privilege technocratic knowledge by maintaining control of the dialogue within the empowered space with those ‘experts’ identified as knowers described by Gunter and Ribbins (2003) but the same power operates to silence other knowledges from the dialogue.

Shaping knowledge

Participants described other forms of opinion gathering including spaces created through formal structures, such as the Local Advisory Board (LAB) with community representatives but no delegation of governance responsibilities; and the Parent Forum described as

‘where they [parents] can express their views, know that they can make a difference, and learn more about how they can support the education of their children’.

However, both the processes and outcomes of this participation sit within the remit of those in the empowered space establishing a role for parent participation as one that supports the organisation in achieving its measures to secure its place in the edu-market as described by Green (2017).

These forms of opinion gathering not only define what knowledge is of value but they also define whose voice is of value. They give access to parents who are comfortable in these spaces where the conditions of the market operate as described by Wilkins (2019). In fact for the empowered space, they were ‘a means for driving the vision forward’ (Principal) underlining the assertion that the privileged knowledge rests firmly within that space to identify both direction and destination.

A restructure of governance to a regional model during the study removed the LAB. The discontinuation of the existing Parent Forum led to the removal of local spaces and the potential to realise ‘two-way dialogue’. It was momentarily acknowledged by the Trustee that ‘the Regional Board, perhaps, loses that real sense of local understanding’. However, the dominance of ‘expert’ knowledge in the empowered space of governance, provided by trustees and Trust executive staff, with skills necessary to manage risk and secure performance in terms of regulatory measures was palpable in explanations of governance engagement with parents. Local parent voice and knowledge were valued as a calculable measure of the academy and Trust's performance used for audit and justification of decisions in the upward accountability chain described by Baxter and Cornforth (2019).

At Town Academy, it was recognised that not all parents were engaged in these formal structures and this led to ‘Coffee with the Principal’ ‘to give people an opportunity to vent … rather than venting on Facebook or to come up and talk’ (Principal). These alongside the establishment of regular meetings within the community at the local Mosque were seen as providing a means for the academy ‘to engage with the parents more effectively’ (Principal). These informal structures whilst offering an illusion of consultation and opinion finding, arguably are disciplinary in nature, acting as public relation activities for the Trust and academy to privilege the ‘expert’ knowledge, manage expectations and shape behaviours. The discursive formation of these activities is underpinned by the power relationship between those in the empowered space and parents. In this way by enabling parent participation, those in the empowered space both control not only what knowledge is valued as described by Gunter and Ribbins (2003) but also what knowledge production is permissible in these public spaces.

Relationship management

Although the shaping of knowledge and its production was seen as the reserve of the empowered space, the role of parent participation was also seen as a means to securing support for the Trust and Town Academy policies such as homework. This focus on operational issues was described by the Principal and the Trustee as examples of the types of topics for parent consultation arising from concerns raised both by some parents and internal monitoring. This sharing of an issue to seek a solution appears at a surface level as one of power sharing. However, these consultations are isolated from a structure that would enable parental participation in a power-sharing context with the opportunity to mutually identify agendas. Further, a focus on operational decisions could at times be determined as a public relations exercise acting in a disciplinary manner as described previously by Anderson (1998) when looking at stakeholders such as teachers. Arguably, these activities align with the thin conception of democracy as consumerism described by Riddle and Apple (2019) and are yet again an opportunity to manage parents as supporters through agendas decided by the school as described by Auerbach (2010). However, arguably, these types of agendas that offer promises of equality (if only we all work on homework or uniform standards) are a vehicle for shaping parent behaviours and expectations ensuring an ideology of individual responsibility is embedded.

Therefore, whilst it appears there is a role for parent participation locally at Town Academy, this role is limited by the privileging of knowledge that replicates that of the markets and positions those with this knowledge as knowers and decision-makers. At Town Academy, parent participation was with the permission of those in the empowered space although an attempt to develop different spaces by the Academy offered some opportunity to hear a multiplicity of voices on the Academy's agenda.

Parent perspectives

Analysis of the stories of the study's parent participants produced two themes. Firstly, recognition of the illusion of power, and secondly, the value of civic knowledge. This offers an alternative conceptualisation of the role parent participation that no longer objectifies parents recognising agency as ‘experts’ in local civic knowledge as citizens of the community.

Illusion of power

In this study, parent participants acknowledged parent participation as being presented with an illusion of power sharing, with the control of both knowledge and spaces in the production of knowledge. The parent forum (chaired by one of the parent participants) agenda was created by ‘send[ing] round by email for anybody who wanted to raise agenda item so it would be a collective agenda’ (Ellis) although he did note it was ‘probably more predominantly school led than forum led’. This illusion of power-sharing was further evident in the stories told by parents. Ellis reflecting on his stories of consultation at the Parent Forum about the new school uniform and name for the academy explained that:

‘We were allowed to share opinions …but ultimately that decision was always going to land with the school’.

His choice of word in ‘allowed’ presents us with a sense of permission being given for voices to be heard and knowledge shared, establishing where the seat of power is positioned. This sense of powerlessness was replicated by another parent when she described her previous engagement as a parent governor:

‘we thought we were deliberating … but we didn't have any greater access than any other parent to the decision-making’ (Alex)

Whilst the empowered space participants may describe the role of parent participation as a two-way dialogue it would seem tit was often experienced as placatory with limitations on knowledge production.

This acknowledgement of the illusion of participation and sense of powerlessness was evident when one parent described the removal of formal local spaces for engagement resulting in:

‘everything flowing downwards… [ the Trust] say, please do this. Then the head does this. But there's absolutely no upward flow of insight, but also any sense of power at all’ (Alex)

This lack of upward flow of insight builds on the study of Baxter and Cornforth (2019) who found accountability was upward. Here, in this study, the knowledge flow is downward not only securing how to be and do, as described by Gunter (2006) for parents engaging with the Trust and Town Academy but also silencing alternative civic knowledge held locally, by controlling the position of power in the public spaces where dialogue occurs with the empowered space.

This distance between those in governance, geographically and metaphorically was reflected in a ‘lack of engagement, forcing that relationship [with the community] further apart’ (Ellis) which perhaps was evident in the most recent parent's questioning of ‘Who are they?’ (Brook). Further, her stories of parent participation focused on using the complaints procedure to establish communication with Town Academy and create a dialogue, ironically in line with market practices and recent suggestions in the Education Bill (DfE, 2022b) to enhance trusts' accountability to local parents.

Local civic knowledge

However, despite parent participants' acknowledgement of how market approaches dominated practice in their participation, the role of parent participation was described as one of giving, influence and sharing offering an

‘opportunity to have a say and get involved in certain aspects of school life … able to share opinions, … in terms of which direction the school is going’. (Ellis)

However, it was also seen to capitalise on the knowledge that parents have locally as ‘parents have this amazing role of being part of the community’ (Alex). Brook similarly explained that ‘know[ing] parents I can put stuff on social media to help’ (Brook). Therefore, it is the sense of local that parents believed they could bring through insider civic knowledge and networks alongside the opportunity to act as community conduits linking Town Academy and Trust leaders with other local civic leaders.

It was believed that this embodiment in the local community offered a different perspective that ‘the staff don't have’ (Alex) which was considered to provide an alternative role for parent participation. This perspective was informed by local civic knowledge derived from being a citizen of the local community. Parents in this study saw this civic knowledge as valuable not only in seeking collective solutions but also in the identification of problems or problematisation (Bacchi, 2009: x). A story of concern about behaviour at the academy was used to explain how the combination of professional knowledge with civic knowledge led to not only a different response but also redefined the problem. In this story, it was explained that the usual response was for students being expected to just ‘behave and … just going to exclude them if they don't’. (Alex). However, through the combination of ‘professional’ and ‘civic’ knowledge brought by local parents, school staff and representatives of governance an alternative solution was named. Perhaps importantly, the recognition of alienation rather than poor behaviour offered a different problematisation (ibid). This led to the connecting of school leaders with local community leaders to create regular events with parents to develop relationships and share knowledge at the local Mosque in a two-way dialogue. Parents were able to provide not only a different perspective that challenged the ‘normal’ responses but also had local knowledge and networks to act as community conduit for school leaders. This collective response was described as:

‘our success together… rather than … we’re providing a service and your customers or we are in authority here and you are in our space’. (Alex)

Through acknowledging that parent participation brings alternative knowledge to that instrumental professional knowledge privileged in the governance of schools we are able to recognise the value of civic knowledge in the production of knowledge in local schools. However, without spaces ‘to have conversations’ (Alex) that engage with civic knowledge, parents continue to be objectified. With this, their role as a citizen remains illusory which arguably leads to the academy failing to gain from that civic knowledge and the community conduit it offers.

Conclusion

Building on prior research this study has demonstrated that all participants in the study recognised a role for parent participation at Town Academy. For those from the empowered space of school governance, it offered a means to manage relationships, parent behaviours and secure the brand locally. Thus, the empowered space shaped parent participation as posited by Auerbach (2010) in line with the Trust's agenda. However, the privileging of the instrumental professional knowledge of the empowered space as common sense and the marginalising and even silencing of civic knowledge is embedded as parents continue to be objectified in this participation.

However,, this research provides a conceptualisation of parental engagement beyond that of the consumer, or parent as deficit. The parent as a citizen with local civic knowledge offers an alternative but complementary knowledge to that of those in professional governance, when seeking school improvement. Importantly, it recognises the parent as a contributor to knowledge production and collective solutions rather than simply an object of the Academy and Trust's engagement with the civic locally and its parents.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

For encouragement given by those engaged in the field of education and educational leadership at University of Manchester, Manchester Institute of Education, especially my PhD supervisors, Professor Steve Courtney and Dr Andy Howes.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Karen Broadhurst Healey

Author biography

Karen Broadhurst Healey is currently undertaking her PhD at the University of Manchester, Institute of Education. Prior to starting her PhD, she completed a Masters in Social Science Research at Keele University. Her research interests include MAT governance, the role of parental engagement and local democracy. These interests have been driven by her experience in schools over the last 20 years. This experience has given her the opportunity to work with those in schools, local parents as well as those governing schools in a variety of contexts. Recently, she presented at her first academic conference paper on professional school governance and parental engagement at the BELMAS 2022 conference.

References

Anderson

(1998) Toward authentic participation: Deconstructing the discourses of participatory reforms in education. American Educational Research Journal 35(4): 571–603.

Auerbach

(2010) Beyond coffee with the principal: Toward leadership for authentic school-family partnerships. Journal of School Leadership 20(6): 730–759.

Bacchi

(2009) Analysing Policy: What’s the Problem Represented to be? Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson.

Ball

(2013) Foucault, Power and Education. London: Routledge.

Baxter

Cornforth

(2019) Governing collaborations: How boards engage with their communities in multi-academy trusts in England. Public Management Review 23(4): 567–589.

Clandinin

Connelly

(2000) Narrative Inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Wiley and Sons.

Courtney

(2015) Mapping school types in England. Oxford Review of Education 41(6): 799–818.

Courtney

McGinity

(2020) System leadership as depoliticisation: Reconceptualising educational leadership in a new multi-academy trust. Educational Management, Administration & Leadership. Advance online publication.50(6): 893–910.

CSTUK (2021) School trusts as new civic structures. [online] Available at: ICE_10062_CST_Civic_Trusts_Jan2021.pdf (cstuk.org.uk) (accessed 15 August 20220).

10.

Department for Education (DfE) (2020) Governance handbook 2019. [online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/925104/Governance_Handbook_FINAL.pdf. (accessed 17 August 2022).

11.

Department for Education (DfE) (2022b) Academy trust standards – schools bill factsheet. Available at: Academy Trust Standards - Schools Bill factsheet (publishing.service.gov.uk) (accessed 16 August 2022).

12.

Department for Education (DfE) (2022a) Opportunity for all – strong schools with great teachers for your child. Available at: Opportunity for all - Strong schools with great teachers for your child (publishing.service.gov.uk) (accessed 17 August 2022).

13.

Erman

(2013) In search of democratic agency in deliberative governance. European Journal of International Relations 19(4): 847–868.

14.

Foucault

(1970) The Order of Things. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

15.

Foucault

(1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Writings 1972–1977. London: Random House Publishing.

16.

Gewirtz

Ball

Bowe

(1994) Parents, privilege and the education market-place. Research Papers in Education 9(1): 3–29.

17.

Green

(2017) From positivism to critical theory: School community relations toward community equity literacy, International. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 30(4): 370–387.

18.

Gunter

(2006) Knowledge production in the field of educational leadership: A place for intellectual histories. Journal of Educational Administration and History 38(2): 201.

19.

Gunter

Hall

Bragg

(2013) Distributed leadership: A study in knowledge production. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(5): 555–580.

20.

Gunter

Ribbins

(2003) The field of educational leadership: Studying maps and mapping studies. British Journal of Educational Studies 51(3): 254–281.

21.

Gunter

(2016) An Intellectual History of School Leadership Practice and Research. London: Bloomsbury.

22.

Gunter

(2019) The Politics of Public Education. Bristol: Policy Press.

23.

Hanafin

Lynch

(2002) Peripheral voices: Parental involvement, social class, and educational disadvantage. British Journal of Sociology of Education 23(1): 35–49.

24.

Harris

Goodall

(2008) Do parents know they matter? Engaging all parents in learning. Educational Research 50(3): 277–289.

25.

Hetherington

(2022) Brand advantage, risk mitigation, and the illusion of democracy: a hive approach to school governance. BELMAS 2022, Liverpool.

26.

Hetherington

Forrester

(2022) Values-led governance and parental and community engagement in the Co-operative Academies Trust: An alternative in the neoliberal context of education? Management in Education 36(1): 34–41.

27.

Hodgson

Spours

(2012) Three versions of “localism”: Implications for upper secondary education and lifelong learning in the UK. Journal of Education Policy 27(2): 193–210.

28.

Kulz

(2021) Everyday erosions: Neoliberal political rationality, democratic decline and the multi-academy trust. British Journal of Sociology of Education 42(1): 66–81.

29.

Mansbridge J, Bohman J, Chambers S, et al. (2012) A Systemic Approach to Deliberative Democracy. In: Parkinson J, Mansbridge J (eds) Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

30.

Mauthner

Doucet

(1998) Reflections on a voice-centred relational method. In Feminist Dilemmas in Qualitative Research: Public Knowledge and Private Lives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 119–146.

31.

McGinity

Heffernan

Courtney

(2022) Mapping trends in educational-leadership research: A longitudinal examination of knowledge production, approaches and locations. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 50(2): 217–232.

32.

Newman

(2001) Modernising Governance. London: Sage.

33.

Olmedo

Wilkins

(2017) Governing through parents: A genealogical enquiry of education policy and the construction of neoliberal subjectivities in England. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 38(4): 573–589.

34.

Punch

(2014) Social Research Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. London: Sage.

35.

Raffo

Dyson

Gunter

Hall

Jones

Kalambouka

(eds.) (2010) Education and Poverty in Affluent Countries. London: Routledge.

36.

Ranson

(2008) The changing governance of education. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 36(2): 201–219.

37.

Reay

Ball

(1997) Spoilt for choice’: The working classes and educational markets. Oxford Review of Education 23(1): 89–101.

38.

Riddle

Apple

(2019) Education and democracy in dangerous times. In: Riddle

Apple

(eds) Re-imaging Education for Democracy. London: Routledge, pp. 1–10.

39.

Smith

(2021) Parent participation practices and subjectivities: New Zealand primary education 1988–2017. Journal of Educational Administration and History 53(3–4): 175–197.

40.

Wilkins

(2015) Professionalizing school governance: The disciplinary effects of school autonomy and inspection on the changing role of school governors. Journal of Education Policy 30(2): 182–200.

41.

Wilkins

(2019) Wither democracy? The rise of epistocracy and monopoly in school governance. In: Riddle

Apple

(eds) Re-imaging Education for Democracy. London: Routledge, pp. 142–155.

42.

Wilkins

Gobby

(2022) Objects and subjects of risk: A governmentality approach to education governance. Globalisation, Societies and Education 20: 1–14.

43.

Woods

Simkins

(2014) Understanding the local. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 42(3): 324–340.

44.

Yin

(2014) Case Study Research: Design and Methods (5th ed.). London: Sage.

45.

Young

(2017) Busy yet passive: (non-)decision-making in school governing bodies. British Journal of Sociology of Education 38(6): 812–826.

Engaging parents in multi academy trusts (MATs) as local civic knowledge experts

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

School governance

Knowledge production

Parent participation

Research design

Analysis methods

Analysis and discussion

Perspectives from the empowered space

Calculability

Shaping knowledge

Relationship management

Parent perspectives

Illusion of power

Local civic knowledge

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Author biography

References