The scheme of delegation as a sensemaking framework in multi-academy trusts in England: Useful tool or constraint?

IF 2.7 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Jacqueline Baxter, K. Jewitt
{"title":"The scheme of delegation as a sensemaking framework in multi-academy trusts in England: Useful tool or constraint?","authors":"Jacqueline Baxter, K. Jewitt","doi":"10.1177/17411432211051907","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Changes to the structure of English education because of decentralisation policy, particularly since 2010, have resulted in the creation of large groupings of schools – multi-academy trusts, organisations with multi-level governance structures, set out in schemes of delegation. Although the government has demanded absolute clarity on the role and remit of each part of the structure and the relationship and reporting between them, recent research suggests that there is little clarity or consistency in the role and function of board structures, with members often confused about their roles. This study draws on data from a funded project to examine: What level of consistency there is in multi-academy trust schemes of delegation, and what evidence is there that schemes of delegation align with sensemaking models of board members? The article concludes with a discussion on what the findings imply for use of schemes of delegation as useful tools for board member sensemaking in multi-academy trusts; revealing that although they can be useful tools for sensemaking, their usage varies a great deal between boards and board members.","PeriodicalId":47885,"journal":{"name":"Educational Management Administration & Leadership","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Management Administration & Leadership","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432211051907","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Changes to the structure of English education because of decentralisation policy, particularly since 2010, have resulted in the creation of large groupings of schools – multi-academy trusts, organisations with multi-level governance structures, set out in schemes of delegation. Although the government has demanded absolute clarity on the role and remit of each part of the structure and the relationship and reporting between them, recent research suggests that there is little clarity or consistency in the role and function of board structures, with members often confused about their roles. This study draws on data from a funded project to examine: What level of consistency there is in multi-academy trust schemes of delegation, and what evidence is there that schemes of delegation align with sensemaking models of board members? The article concludes with a discussion on what the findings imply for use of schemes of delegation as useful tools for board member sensemaking in multi-academy trusts; revealing that although they can be useful tools for sensemaking, their usage varies a great deal between boards and board members.
英国多学院信托中的委托方案:有用的工具还是约束?
由于分权政策,特别是自2010年以来,英国教育结构的变化导致了大型学校集团的创建——多学院信托基金,具有多层次治理结构的组织,在委托计划中规定。尽管政府要求绝对明确董事会结构中每个部分的角色和职权范围,以及它们之间的关系和报告,但最近的研究表明,董事会结构的角色和功能几乎不明确或不一致,成员经常对自己的角色感到困惑。本研究利用一个资助项目的数据来检验:多学院委托信托方案的一致性水平如何,委托方案与董事会成员的意义构建模型相一致的证据有哪些?文章最后讨论了研究结果对在多学院信托中使用授权方案作为董事会成员意义制定的有用工具的含义;这表明,尽管它们可以成为有用的语义构建工具,但它们的使用在董事会和董事会成员之间差异很大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Educational Management Administration & Leadership
Educational Management Administration & Leadership EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
19.40%
发文量
63
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信