Tim Sanders Warwick Mansell

The Facebook approach to education?

Warwick Mansell is a freelance education journalist and founder/writer of educationuncovered. co.uk

“THIS is not a democracy, it’s an authoritarian state.” So said a leading American lawyer quoted in the Washington Post. He was describing the set-up at Facebook, as the social network faced another round of revelations about developments at the company under its founder, chairman and chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg.

Documents leaked by whistleblower Frances Haugen, a former project manager at Facebook, reportedly included claims that the firm knew its products were damaging teenagers’ mental health but failed to act. There are also wider worries that the social media platform has served as a polarising force in political debates.

Central to Haugen’s argument was that Facebook prioritises profitability over its impact on society – a point vehemently denied by Facebook – that this came from “the top” and that it was made possible because there were few checks and balances on Zuckerberg’s power. He controls a reported 58 per cent of voting shares at the company.

Reading about this controversy, I wondered again about governance in academy trusts. Specifically, why have successive governments seemed relaxed about super-centralised control of academy trusts, given how contentious this model can be in the corporate sector?

The common factor in scandals hitting academies, in my experience writing about them, has been a lack of checks and balances on the decision-making of a few overly powerful figures within each organisation.

Such individuals have often been charismatic ‘super heads’ who become chief executives with large salaries and a ‘transformative’ outlook, or all-powerful ‘sponsors’ with a singular vision for how ‘their’ schools should operate.

Not all such regimes have ended in tears, of course. But sufficient numbers of formerly lauded individuals and organisations within the academies sector have ended up imploding for serious questions to be asked.

The academies model has allowed ‘sponsors’ complete control of these statefunded schools through the governance system. In some cases, academy trust constitutions, approved by the Government, have been written to allow one individual the power to appoint and dismiss the majority of their board.

England’s second largest chain, the Harris Federation, has a hereditary clause whereby such power will pass from its titular sponsor to their family when they die.

Such set-ups represent an extreme within the sector, and I am not aware of any academy trust now operating under the Facebook model of having a chief executive who is also chair of the board.

However, established within the academies model is the notion that just a few people, who are often friends or spouses, can establish a trust and are given the right to appoint and dismiss governors. This embeds centralisation and a lack of checks and balances within the policy, since ultimate control lies with this group.

If this is controversial in the private sector, when individuals have often taken on personal financial risk to set up companies so might feel justified in having complete control, it should be even more so in education, a state-funded public service.