Although the number and size of academy chains in England is still increasing, the implications of these arrangements at a local level remain under-researched. This article reports findings from a comparative case study focusing on governance arrangements and sponsor involvement in two chains of academies. The findings suggest that the policy and practice of these multi-academy sponsors define the autonomy of the individual academies within the chains, so that the level of autonomy individual academies experience varies significantly between, as well as within, chains.
AltmanYBaruchY (1998) Cultural theory and organizations: analytical method and cases. Organization Studies19(5): 769–785.
3.
BallS (2011) Academies, policy networks and governance. In: GunterH (ed.) The State and Education Policy: The Academies Programme. London: Continuum, 146–158.
4.
BallSJunemannC (2012) Networks, New Governance and Education. Bristol: Policy Press.
5.
BeckJ (2009) Appropriating professionalism: restructuring the official knowledge base of England’s ‘modernized’ teaching profession. British Journal of Sociology of Education30(1): 3–14.
6.
BuckleyJSchneiderM (2007) Charter Schools: Hope or Hype?Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
BulkleyK (2004) Balancing act: educational management organizations and charter school autonomy. In: BulkleyKVohlstetterP (eds) Taking Account of Charter Schools: What's Happened and What's Next?New York: Teachers College Press, 121–141.
DouglasM (1982) In the Active Voice. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
16.
FinkelsteinNDGrubbWN (2000) Making sense of education and training markets: lessons from England. American Education Research Journal37(3): 601–631.
17.
FinniganKS (2007) Charter school autonomy: the mismatch between theory and practice, Educational Policy21(3): 503–526.
18.
GewirtzSCribbA (2009) Understanding Education: A Sociological Perspective. Cambridge: Polity.
19.
GlatterR (2011) Joining up the dots: academies and system coherence. In: GunterH (ed.) The State and Education Policy: The Academies Programme. London: Continuum, 159–170.
20.
GlatterR (2012) Persistent preoccupations: the rise and rise in school autonomy and accountability in England. Educational Management, Administrations & Leadership40(5): 559–575.
HoodC (1998) The Art of The State, Culture Rhetoric and Public Management. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
27.
HuertaLA (2000) Losing public accountability: a home schooling charter. In: FullerB (ed.) Inside Charter Schools: The Paradox of Radical Decentralization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 177–202.
28.
MersethKCooperKRobertsJ. (2009) Inside Urban Charter Schools: Promising Practices and Strategies in Five High Performing Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
29.
MilesMHubermanMB (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Source Book. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
30.
MironGApplegateB (2000) An evaluation of student achievement in Edison schools Opened in 1995 and 1996. Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University.
31.
MironGUrschelJ (2010) Profiles of nonprofit management organizations: 2009–2010. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Available at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/NEPC_NP-EMO-09–10_0.pdf(accessed 16 April 2013).
32.
MironGUrschelJLAguilarYat. (2012) Profiles of for-profit and nonprofit education management organizations, thirteenth annual report: 2010–2011. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Available at: http://repository.asu.edu/attachments/78997/content/13_2010–11.pdf(accessed 5 April 2013).
33.
MironGUrschelJLMathisWJ. (2010) Schools without diversity: education management organizations, charter schools and the demographic stratification of the American school system. Boulder, CO: Education and the Public Interest Center and Education Policy Research Unit. Available at: http://ea.niusileadscape.org/docs/FINAL_PRODUCTS/LearningCarousel/SchoolsWODiversity.pdf(accessed 16 April 2013).
34.
MironGUrschelJLSaxtonN (2011) What makes KIPP work? A study of student characteristics, attrition, and school finance. National Center for study of Privatization of Education and Study Group of Educational Management Organizations. Available at: http://ncspe.org/publications_files/OP195_3.pdf(accessed: 16 April 2013).
SpickardJV (1989) A guide to Mary Douglas’s three versions of Grid/Group theory. Sociological Analysis50(2): 151–170.
37.
StoreyA (2009) How fares the ‘new professionalism’ in schools? Findings from the ‘state of the nation’ project. Curriculum Journal20(2): 121–138.
38.
ThompsonMEllisRWildavskyA (1990) Cultural Theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
39.
WhittyG (2007) Teacher professionalism in new times, Journal of In- Service Education26(2): 281–295.
40.
WilsonSF (2005) Realizing the promise of brand-name schools. In: RavitchD (ed.) Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2005. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 89–135.
41.
YanceyP (2000)We hold on to our kids, we hold on tight: tandem charters in Michigan. In: FullerB (ed.) Inside Charter Schools: The Paradox of Radical Decentralization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 66–97.
