Where does this school go? : analyzing the decentralization and neoliberalization of local governments through school spatial planning practices in Amsterdam and London

(1)

ANALYZING THE DECENTRALIZATION AND

NEOLIBERALIZATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

THROUGH SCHOOL SPATIAL PLANNING PRACTICES

IN AMSTERDAM AND LONDON

Sofia Arrias Bittencourt

Research Masters Urban Studies August 2019

Universiteit van Amsterdam

Supervisor: prof. dr. M.T. (Tuna) Tasan-Kok

WHERE

DOES THIS

SCHOOL

(2)

ABSTRACT

There are strong parallels between the new school provision system in England, proposed by the Edu-cation Act (2011), and what has been implemented in the Netherlands since the 1980’s: a private not-for-profit system that is funded by central government. However, spatial planning practices for provision differ greatly between the two. Thus, this thesis investigates how decentralization processes change the school spatial planning practices in Amsterdam and London. Here, I argue that this process is variegated through four main avenues that enable and constrain local governments ability to provide schools: the school provision system, the nature of the planning system, land ownership practices, and fiscal systems. Scholars have thoroughly investigated decentraliza-tion and the neoliberalizadecentraliza-tion of local governments (Beswick & Penny, 2018; Penny, 2018), however, the spatial causes and consequences of this pro-cess have not yet been explored in-depth. This research aims to fill this gap, by investigating levels

of decentralization in school provision systems, fiscal systems, planning systems and land ownership as the enablers and constraints of local government in school spatial planning practices.

Different levels of decentralization under new com-plex and multi-faceted governance arrangements mould the way in which local governments act. In the case of education, this is done through the lens of empowerment and freedom of users to choose on a quasi-market competitive arrangement, but when in fact it can entail a recentralizing of control, decentralization of responsibilities and an outsourcing of provision. As Birch and Siemiatycki (2016) argue that can actually hinder the ability of local government to plan for its own territory and citizens, this thesis demonstrates that as local governments become bound by other scales and actors into governance arrangements, it influences “Where does this school go?”

WHERE DOES THIS SCHOOL GO?

ANALYZING THE DECENTRALIZATION AND NEOLIBERALIZATION

OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THROUGH SCHOOL SPATIAL

PLANNING PRACTICES IN AMSTERDAM AND LONDON

Sofia Arrias Bittencourt

Research Masters Urban Studies August 2019

Universiteit van Amsterdam

(3)

FIGURES

Figure 01 - Conceptual research scheme. Source: Produced by author 8

Figure 02 - Distribution of decision-making within levels of government regarding Education. Source: van Twist, M. et al. (2013), “Coping with Very Weak Primary Schools: Towards Smart Interventions in Dutch Education Policy”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 98, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi. org/10.1787/5k3txnpnhld7-en 9

Figure 03 - Visual scheme on the process of neo-liberalization overlay over different pre-existences in different countries. Source: Produced by author. 13 Figure 04 - Decentralization scheme, according to lev-el of responsibilities and autonomy. Source: Produced by author 15

Figure 05 - Location of London and Amsterdam, focused on the cities and their boroughs and districts. Source: Produced by author 21

Figure 02 - Distribution of decision-making within levels of government regarding Education. Source: van Twist, M. et al. (2013), “Coping with Very Weak Primary Schools: Towards Smart Interventions in Dutch Education Policy”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 98, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi. org/10.1787/5k3txnpnhld7-en 22

Figure 06 – Amount of data processed for each city’s land ownership analysis. Source: Produced by author 26

Figure 07 – Map data processing for London. Source: Produced by author 27

Figure 08 - Source image for GIS data preparation. Source: Gemeente Amsterdam (2019) 28 Figure 09 - Rebuilt GIS dataset for analysis. Source: Transference of image into GIS dataset by author. 29

Figure 10 - School provision process chart – England. Source: Policy analysis by author. For more informa-tion refer to methods secinforma-tion. 33

Figure 11 - School provision process chart – Neth-erlands. Source: Policy analysis by author. For more information refer to methods section. 35 Figure 12 - Poster in Hackney school fences. Taken by author in November 15th 2018. 40

Figure 13 - Percentages of London land ownership. Source: Spatial analysis of land ownership datasets by author. For more information refer to methods section. 45

Figure 14 - Percentages of London public land own-ership. Source: Spatial analysis of land ownership datasets by author. For more information refer to methods section. 45

Map 01 – Public land percentages per London borough. Source: Spatial analysis of land ownership datasets by author. For more information refer to methods section. 46

Map 02 – Private land percentages per London borough. Source: Spatial analysis of land ownership datasets by author. For more information refer to methods section. 47

Map 03 – National Government land percentages per London borough. Source: Spatial analysis of land ownership datasets by author. For more information refer to methods section. 48

Map 04 – Local authority land percentages per London borough. Source: Spatial analysis of land ownership datasets by author. For more information refer to methods section. 49

Map 05 – Education land percentages per London borough. Source: Spatial analysis of land ownership datasets by author. For more information refer to methods section. 50

Map 06 – Focus on London borough of Hackney and the composition of land in 3 situations. Source: Spatial analysis of land ownership datasets by author. For more information refer to methods section. 51 Figure 15 - Percentages of Amsterdam land own-ership. Source: Spatial analysis of land ownership datasets by author. For more information refer to methods section. 53

Figure 16 - Percentages of Amsterdam public land ownership. Source: Spatial analysis of land ownership datasets by author. For more information refer to methods section. 53

Map 07 – Public land percentages per Amsterdam district. Source: Spatial analysis of land ownership datasets by author. For more information refer to methods section. 54

Map 08 – Private land percentages per Amsterdam district. Source: Spatial analysis of land ownership datasets by author. For more information refer to methods section. 55

Map 09 – National government, railways and harbour land percentages per Amsterdam district. Source: Spatial analysis of land ownership datasets by author. For more information refer to methods section. 56 Map 10 – Municipality land in lease percentages per Amsterdam district. Source: Spatial analysis of land ownership datasets by author. For more information refer to methods section. 57

Map 11 – Municipality land percentages per Am-sterdam district. Source: Spatial analysis of land ownership datasets by author. For more information refer to methods section. 58

Map 12 – Focus on Amsterdam district Oost and the composition of land in 3 situations, overlaid with school locations. Source: Spatial analysis of land ownership datasets by author. For more information refer to methods section. 59

Figure 17 - Percentages of school land ownership in Amsterdam. Source: Spatial analysis of land owner-ship datasets by author. For more information refer to methods section. 59

Figure 18 - Amsterdam Municipality public overview of school spatial planning. Source: retrieved from https:// www.ihp.amsterdam/ 15th of June 2019. 61 Figure 13 - Percentages of London land ownership. Source: Spatial analysis of land ownership datasets by author. For more information refer to methods section. 66

Figure 14 - Percentages of London public land

ownership. Source: Spatial analysis of land ownership datasets by author. For more information refer to methods section. 66

Figure 15 - Percentages of Amsterdam land own-ership. Source: Spatial analysis of land ownership datasets by author. For more information refer to methods section. 66

Figure 16 - Percentages of Amsterdam public land ownership. Source: Spatial analysis of land ownership datasets by author. For more information refer to methods section. 66

Figure 12 - School provision process chart – England. Source: Policy analysis by author. For more informa-tion refer to methods secinforma-tion. 67

Figure 11 - School provision process chart – Neth-erlands. Source: Policy analysis by author. For more information refer to methods section. 67 Document 01: Request for Ownership datasets addressed to the Kadaster. April 22nd 2019. 77 Document 02: Response received with data amounts and costs for research. May 14th 2019. 78

TABLES

Table 01: Supporting interviews 23 Table 02: Sources of London policy 24

Table 03: Sources of Amsterdam policy 25 Table 04: Sources of GIS Datasets London. 26 Table 05: Sources of GIS Datasets Amsterdam 28

Table 06: Overview of roles of different actors in the different enabling and constraining forces of school spatial planning practices in London and Amsterdam, based on research findings. Source: Produced by

(5)

1 | INTRODUCTION

Over the last decades, there has been a rise of decentralization towards subnational government in several countries, especially in regards to ad-ministrative powers. This is legitimized through a view that local government can better understand and fulfill the needs of citizens, due to geographical proximity, leading to higher efficiency and improved use of public resources. However, combined with the policy developments after the global financial crisis, this has prompted authors (Besussi, 2011; Geddes, 2005; Jessop, 2002; Peck & Tickell, 1994) to place decentralization as one of the pieces of further neoliberalizing governments, especially regarding municipal services.

While there have been several studies discussing decentralization and the neoliberalization of local governments (Beswick & Penny, 2018; Penny, 2018), there is a gap in analyzing the spatial causes and consequences of this process, under the wider influence of policy change in national level. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to investigate levels

of decentralization (fiscal systems, planning systems and land ownership) as the differentiating enablers and constraints of local government in school spatial planning practices.

There are strong parallels from the new school provi-sion system in England, proposed by the Education Act (2011), to what has been implemented in the Netherlands since the 1980’s: a private not-for-profit system that is funded by central government. How-ever, spatial planning practices for provision differ greatly between the two. Then the question becomes: how do decentralization processes change school spatial planning practices? As a basic urban service, location of schools has crucial consequences for urban development. It can determine flows of people, patterns of movement, perception and choice within the urban environment. Under the lens of neoliberal-ization of states in variegated forms (Brenner, Peck, & Theodore, 2010; Brogan, 2013; Peck, 2013; Peck & Tickell, 2002), decentralization can also be under-stood as an influx and variegated process. In this

(6)

thesis I argue that such variegated decentralization shapes spatial planning practices and can be investi-gated through answering two research sub questions:

• How does the macro-landscape of

national systems and regulations enable and constrain local governments’ ability to plan for school provision?

• Under this macro-landscape, which are the practices of local governments to plan and execute school provision?

In this research, as shown in figure 01, this was op-erationalized through four main avenues: the school provision system, the nature of the planning system, land ownership practices, and fiscal systems. For public service provision that entails a physical space, the last three elements play crucial roles in the spatial planning of services. In the case of schools spatial planning practices where they are physically placed is determined by: the overall planning system through foreseen development and assessment of need; the

availability of public land to implement the actual equipment; and the local government’s ability to fund the construction and/or service;

Neoliberalization has been a constant influence of spatial policy and service provision systems across Europe in various shapes and strengths in the last 40 years (Waterhout, Othengrafen, & Sykes, 2013). This has meant a shift towards pursuing policy efficiency, delivery and evaluation in market-like levels in the public sector. In the specific case of public service provision, market or market-inspired solutions are applied with focus on privatization and mass out-sourcing of tasks and services to third sector, such as volunteer organizations, not-for-profit corporations, foundations and even private firms (Purcell, 2009). While the impacts of this larger dependence on market-inspired solutions for urban development initiatives and national systems of public services have been explored by several scholars (Beswick & Penny, 2018; Raco, 2013, 2014; Willems, 2014), there is Figure 01 - Conceptual research scheme. Source: Produced by author

a gap on the discussion of the implications of such ar-rangements in smaller scale and direct impact urban services, such as public-funded schools.

The current landscape is being researched on the social and educational effects of outsourcing school provision by scholars in Education (Ball, 2007; Ball & Junemann, 2012; Boyask, 2015; Gunter, Hall, & Apple, 2017), and on its relationship with the urban, specifically in American cities (Davis & Oakley, 2013; Lipman, 2008, 2009, 2013, 2015; Lipman & Haines, 2007). However, the relationship between education provision and urban environment in a European context has not been widely explored.

In addition, school provision has historically been statutory duties of local governments, both in England and in the Netherlands, which provides a stimulating parallel into the impacts of decentralization of local governments in these two realities. Both countries score similarly in the level of school autonomy in decision-making demonstrated on the Figure 02 (van Twist, M. et al, 2013), sharing the decisions

with local government in England and central in the Netherlands.

To study these current changes, this thesis used a case-oriented and comparative strategy for research grounded on a complexity rationale to understand the different causal models involved in a given result (Pickvance, 2001; Byrne, 2005). Therefore, the process started with a broad overview and policy analysis related to the themes of education and planning. Alongside policy analysis, supporting interviews were conducted with officers related to school provision in both cities, to supplement informa-tion on governance networks and relainforma-tionships, and understand their practice in school spatial planning. In addition, secondary data and literature was employed in understanding the fiscal and planning systems of both cases. In the local scale, a spatial analysis was developed and re-connected to methods applied in the macro-analysis.

The overall structure of the study takes the form of seven chapters, including this introductory chapter. Chapter Two lays out the theoretical dimensions of the research, and looks at how it influences different levels of decentralization, market-dependent practices and welfare state reduction in both England and the Netherlands. The third chapter is concerned with the methodology used in this research.

The analysis is subdivided into two chapters, a macroanalysis and a local analysis. Chapter 4 refers to broader structural systems shaping School Spatial Planning Practices on National level, such as the School Provision Systems, Planning Systems, Fiscal systems and the aftermath of the 2008 crisis. While chapter 5 focuses on the spatial impacts of these systems into the built environment in London and Am-sterdam, combining the aforementioned policies with land ownership patterns and contrasting them with school spatial planning practices.

Chapter 6 discusses the relevant findings from the analysis and compares them in terms of levels of decentralization and neoliberalization. And finally, chapter 7 concludes the analysis by outlining the main outtakes and possibilities for further elaboration on the field.

Figure 02 - Distribution of decision-making within levels of government regarding Education. Source: van Twist, M. et al.

(2013), “Coping with Very Weak Primary Schools: Towards Smart Interventions in Dutch Education Policy”, OECD Education

Working Papers, No. 98, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi. org/10.1787/5k3txnpnhld7-en

(7)

POSITIONING PLURAL

PROCESSES UNDER

THEORIES OF VARIEGATION

2 | FOLLOW THE PROCESS

In conceptualizing a form of ‘variegated neoliberal-ization’ (Peck, 2013, p. 145), this chapter introduces neoliberalism as being found in several situations, but never in an ideal state, implemented fully into a system, an institution or a society. It is inserted into a series of pre-existences in a process that is highly contingent. Thus, it sets the theoretical framework for the different levels of decentralization, market-de-pendent practices and welfare state reduction in both England and the Netherlands.

Later, this section will focus on decentralization, as the different ways in which local government is embedded in broader governance networks and the systems that enable and constrain their action within their territories. By conceptualizing decentralization as a ‘process, not an event’ (MacKinnon, 2015) analo-gously to the process view of neoliberalization, I will operationalize the evolution and change of institutional structures and relations over time as reaching different levels of decentralization (MacKinnon, 2015). Thus, as a process that is not unidirectional and is constant

contentious dispute and being built and dismantled towards different directions in complex governance arrangements. Therefore, through dissecting the levels of decentralization from the perspective of neoliberalizing states, local governance systems can be perceived as going through variegated decentral-ization, where local tax systems, planning systems and land ownership can expose their role in shaping their areas. This is especially important in the case of broader service provision, which has historically been a main responsibility of local governments, school provision included.

2.1 | NEOLIBERALIZATION

A description of neoliberalism from authors that champion it, argues that it is “an active preference for market-based and growth-oriented solutions that respect both individual and property rights, married to an organizational demeanor that is optimistic, “global-ist,” pragmatic, “open-minded,” and concerned above

(8)

all with “changing the world for the better” (Bowman 2016: 1).” (in Peck and Theodore 2019:253). This research, however, does not subscribe to such rose-coloured lenses view of the term, but to a more critical conceptualization of a ‘mutating project of state-facilitated market rule’ (Peck and Theodore 2019:245).

Neoliberalization is the concept employed by schol-ars from the political economy field that argue that neoliberalism is in fact a process (Birch, 2015). This understanding of neoliberalism as a process, rather than as a project or an outcome, is constructed on an attempt to reconnect Marxist and Foucauldian conceptualizations. Peck describes a ‘fork in the road’ (2013, p. 142) between authors who follow a structuralist view focused on institutions and the more poststructuralist approaches. They recognize the tensions found in both approaches while they propose a via media approach that draws on Fou-cauldian notions that neoliberalism should not be regarded as a coherent united program, but whose embeddedness into existing institutional cores creates a ‘variegated neoliberalization’ (Peck, 2013, p. 145). Thus, in order to study such processes, the authors ‘argue for working on different levels of analysis’ (Brogan, 2013, p. 2)

As a conceptualization that draws on both Marxist and Foucauldian sources to understand neoliberalism, this stream treats neoliberalism as a re-engineering, without resorting to an all-encompassing ideology as in the Marxist view. Geographers “(…) insist on exploring how neoliberalization is reproduced through all these domains—the institutional, the ideational, the ideological, the social and so on—as a contradictory process” (Brogan 2013, p. 2).

Using the term ‘variegated neoliberalization’ implies the authors’ view that neoliberalism is not uniform and can be found in different forms and implementations. In fact, neoliberalism’s insertion into diverse system, institutions and societies is highly contingent and never fully implemented in an ideal state.

Marked by phases of “rollback” neoliberalism of deregulation and dismantlement in the 1980’s and the current response of “rollout” neoliberalism

through active state-building, regulatory reforms and marketization of services rooted on third way politics that re-engineer state-market relations. (Peck & Tickell, 2002). Neoliberalization is far-reaching, yet geographically uneven, being embedded into consen-sual decisions, innovative transformation, conflictual arrangements, and even in seemingly progressive democratic agendas throughout the entire political spectrum (Peck & Theodore, 2019).

Questions are raised by the authors that subscribe to an anthropological view of neoliberalism, that viewing it as a process “makes it almost impossible to gainsay the highly generalized claims about neoliberalism as an ideology and neoliberalization as a state-led project.” (Birch 2015, p. 579). According to them, by identifying processes as neoliberalization, it becomes an all-encompassing substitute for explanation. This has been addressed by Peck (2013) that employing neoliberalization onto phenomena “should be an occasion for explanation, involving the specification of particular causal mechanisms, modes of intervention, hybrid formations, social forms and foibles, count-er-mobilizations, and so forth” (Peck 2013, p. 154) rather than a substitute for a careful analysis. More recently, scholarship has focused on the new mutations of neoliberalism and if the concept has remained a valid signifier of current processes, understood either as a background or as a precise influencer to them (Peck & Theodore, 2019). Here, I subscribe to Peck & Theodore (2019) approach that neoliberalism is an emergent mode of regulation, that is installed in various spaces and systems cumula-tively, slowly but surely changing how processes are developed, although mostly not as a sole or monopo-lizing influence.

Thus, conceptualizing neoliberalization as this overlay to all systems and processes of governances in distinct ways according to pre-existences (Figure 03), constantly contested and normalized in waves, can assist in positioning England and the Netherlands in this complex process of change.

Peck & Theodore (2019) discuss that under such overlay, there is no use of discussing systems, coun-tries or politicians as being primarily neoliberal or not.

Such a simplistic dichotomy can be utterly unhelpful in understanding neoliberalization as a phenomenon. The authors even problematize the views that neolib-eralism is viewed as natural part of Anglo-American politics, while reduced to a binary choice in Scandina-vian countries, that either dominates or does not exist at all (Peck & Theodore, 2019). However, projects of neoliberalization have been implemented to various degrees in most countries, and through a capture of the state into market and/or market-like solutions. In addition, the consequences of the financial crisis have now started to appear also in the behaviour of neoliberalizing projects. While there was an expected retreat of neoliberalism due to a substantial crisis of its system, the reality was a ‘doubling down’ (Peck and Theodore 2019:249) on the speed and boldness of such changes. Public services, servants and budgets, as well as social security, public healthcare and edu-cation systems have been hit by this doubling down, analogously to other rounds of neoliberalization.

However, what makes this round unique is that is the level of liberation and value given to capital, extending the logic of economic towards every aspect of the state and of life.

Scholars that use neoliberalization as basis for understanding privatization and marketization pro-cess argue that these propro-cess are ‘complex and multi-layered’ (Warner and Clifton, p. 57, 2014 in Birch & Siemiatycki, 2016). Especially in the case of public services, it is inherently tied to a separation of local service needs from the system of their provision, through privatization and decentralization of formerly large, centralized bureaucracies (Doogan, 1997 in Birch & Siemiatycki, 2016)

Therefore, in order to understand how neoliberalisa-tion leads to decentralizaneoliberalisa-tion processes in the case of service provision, I will interpret decentralization in the next section under a lens of variegated process that is shaped by and shapes neoliberal projects.

Figure 03 - Visual scheme on the process of neoliberalization overlay over different pre-existences in different countries. Source: Pro-duced by author.

(9)

2.2 | DECENTRALIZATION

In the beginning of the 1990s, there was extensive discussion on the fate of the nation states as being bound for extinction under growing globalization and rise of regionalism (MacKinnon, 2015). Time has shown that the emergence of such new forces pushes states into complex and multi-faceted ar-rangements rather than to utter dissolution of power. Decentralization is one of ways such restructuring is done, where power is rearranged amongst the layers of governance (MacKinnon, 2015), which will be further explored in this section. It is a complex process that rests upon three main pillars: political, administrative and fiscal transfers of power.

Political decentralization relates to a legitimacy transfer process as to strengthen local levels in deci-sion-making powers, strongly associated to reducing the democratic gap created by distant governments. Meanwhile, administrative decentralization possesses a more procedural nature. It entails a reorganization of tasks and responsibilities between different levels of government, also transferring the responsibility for the planning, financing and management of such tasks to subordinate levels of government

And lastly, fiscal decentralization that drives changes to the level of taxing and spending under the respon-sibility of subnational government. Through creating autonomy on fiscal resources and finances, local governments are allowed crucial independence to fulfill their decentralized responsibilities. The manners under which this autonomy is achieved can vary from locally raised or centrally transferred revenues, but the authority of expenditure decision-making is decisive in enabling decentralized government. Fiscal decentralization can be achieved through different achievements, municipal self-financing through user charges, co-financing of services and infrastructure with users, expansion of local revenues through taxes, intergovernmental transfers from central government for general or specific uses, and lastly, authoriza-tion of borrowing and loans, with naauthoriza-tional or local guarantees.

Rodden, Eskeland, & Litvack (2003) discuss three major combinations of these pillars into different levels of decentralization - deconcentration, delegation, and devolution (Figure 04).

Deconcentration consists of a redistribution of au-thority, financial and management responsibilities amongst levels of central government spatially distributed within a unitary state. Under the same scale of government, the distribution is about creating branches of central government that are physically deconcentrated.

Delegation is a more extensive and common form of decentralization. As the label already indicates, deci-sion-making responsibility is delegated from central government to semi-autonomous organizations that are not fully controlled by it, but remain accountable. There are several examples of instances where gov-ernment makes use of delegation process, such as in housing and transportation authorities, but also in the establishment of lower tiers of government. Under this arrangement, institutions are allowed a substantial leeway in decision-making.

Devolution, on the other hand, entails a quasi-au-tonomous relationship between government scales. Through devolution, authority on decision-making, finance and management are transferred to local government. Under this system, municipalities elect their own representatives, raise their own revenues, and therefore have independent authority to make all of their decisions. Devolution has a politicized quality to its implementation that impacts the organization for management of the public realm.

Several scholars focus on devolution as an opera-tionalization concept, as to analyze the level in which responsibilities and powers are transferred from central to regional or local governments (Lobao et al. 2009 in Mackinnon 2015). However, by what means this transfer is realized varies substantially between countries, therefore this research will focus on de-centralization as the overall process varying from deconcentration all the way to devolution as a scale of responsibilities transferred.

In broad terms, decentralization can be seen as a management strategy in an attempt of a governable public realm. In recent years, forms of governance are being transformed towards processes of ne-gotiation and contracts, in resonance with private managerial practices (Tasan-Kok, van den Hurk, Özogul, & Bittencourt, 2019). Which has increased the complexity of governance arrangements through an expanding landscape of actors involved and fragmentation of the decision-making process, requir-ing increased coordination and consensus buildrequir-ing in non-hierarchical forms. This complexifying landscape demands distinct forms of government, such as decentralization of decision-making powers.

Thus, over the last decades there has been a rise of decentralization towards subnational government in several countries, especially in regards to adminis-trative powers. This is legitimized through a view that local government can better understand and fulfill the needs of citizens, due to geographical proximity, leading to higher efficiency and improved use of public resources.

The discourses supporting decentralization have been identified as three (Rodriguez-Pose & Sandall, 2008), identity, democracy and economy, and that

have been steadily shifting. While decentralization rose as an identity issue under which minority groups were claiming for proximity to decision-making, and evolved as a democratic trait as to strengthen society and participation, it has lately gained momentum as an issue of economic efficiency. From this perspec-tive, decentralization increases efficiency in resource delivery due to the previously mentioned geographical proximity. Rodrigues-Pose and Sandall (2018) also discuss that this discourse overlaps with neoliberal projects of liberalization, deregulation and privatiza-tion, as an opposition of a slow and unresponsive centralized government.

In addition, those who disagree with decentralization from a different perspective argue that decentralization could lead to fiscal competition, spatial disparities and increased dependency on assets, such as land and property (Besussi, 2011). In a scenario of fiscal decentral-ization that is coupled with reduction of central transfers, localities would be dependent only on their tax base, without the aid of central government solidarity principles. This could lead to an increase of disparities and interre-gional dispute for scarce private resources. Additionally, it might also compromise economic stability, as local governments would be prone to pursue short-term policies to guarantee instant revenue.

(10)

fiscal systems are decentralized or not towards local governments.

Service Provision

Graham and Marvin (2001, 145-6, in Birch and

Siemiatycki, 2016) have two requisites for classifying a good or service as public, that it possesses ‘low rival-ry because consumption by one individual does not lessen availability to others’; and low ‘excludability’ since ‘exclusion is usually not feasible, or very costly, in the case of public goods’.

Historically several public services and goods have been provided by local governments, with the amount growing through decentralization reforms in the past decades. Local governments are, or have been, responsible for social services such as education, social work, housing, planning and training in different degrees. These responsibilities have been steadily growing in the last years, however, parallel to other topics related to public government, the service of public goods is also closely connected to the shifting discourse from social to monetary objectives.

The combination of growing responsibilities with a focus on efficiency objectives has unfolded into two situations: the implementations of private logic evalua-tion of the provision of public services; and a growing dependence of market and market-like solutions for provision.

In the former, local governments are assessed through economic efficiency benchmarks and the goal of provision is getting value for money rather than achieving the social goals desired. While in the latter, provision is outsourced to the private sector completely, according to Peters (2012, 229, in Birch and Siemiatycki, 2016) private provision already accounts for 40% of public goods. Thus, this ex-tensive implementation of market and market-like solutions in the provision of public services impacts deeply the decision-making process that can change local and national landscapes, and understanding the role of government and citizens becomes even more decisive.

Birch and Siemiatycki (2016) discuss that it can hinder Nonetheless, the process is often more nuanced

than that. Decentralization process do not occur in a vacuum, and their adaptation depends largely in the preexistences it encounters – historical, cultural and political – but also in the manner in which they are implemented.

Therefore, it is crucial to understand how decentral-ization processes happen and how they shape the governance landscape through a system of enabling and constraining local governments actions and consequently spatial development (Razin, 2000 in Besussi, 2011). The kind of powers and responsibil-ities are transferred or not, alongside financing and coordination, have impact not only on the degree of decentralization but also on the realization possi-bilities of government. Accordingly, I will follow with a focus on two ways in which decentralization is implemented.

Transfer of powers towards local government is the average decentralization model as discussed previ-ously. Central government will through distinct levels move a share of its responsibilities and powers to a lower level of government, in this case local. This pro-cess is done under a lens of increasing democracy, as provision is closer to citizens and can be more ac-countable, but also as to increase efficiency thorough increased awareness of needs and demands.

Another form of decentralization currently being im-plemented by national governments is outsourcing of former public responsibilities, which has been portrayed by Clarke (2004, 36, in Birch and Siemiatycki 2016) as ‘selective decentralization’. The establishment of new quasi-autonomous non-governmental organizations, outsourcing to NGOs, not-for-profit companies and civil society bodies and market parties can be seen as forms of decentralization of responsibilities, through several contractual systems. These processes are legitimized through the premised benefits of market distribution and efficiency in comparison to the unresponsive central state, in strong parallel to the economic discourse for decentralization.

In the following section the decentralization of service provision, highlighting the changes in education, fol-lowed by how planning systems, land ownership and

Fiscal systems, the Planning system and Land Ownership

Financial ability to carry out their responsibilities is a main enabler of local governments activities. There-fore, the fiscal arrangements between central and local government impact vastly the degree of autono-my that decentralized bodies have to make decisions. In that sense, it is possible to classify the level of fiscal decentralization in a country as to how these relation-ships occur and therefore shape the possible actions of local government.

Besussi (2011) argues that fiscal systems can be ‘incentives and deterrents for strategic spatial plan-ning decision-making of local authorities’ (p.11). Therefore, understanding how the revenue system of local governments are based on transfers from central government, own resources, local taxation, assets, can exemplify the position of local governments and their need to raise revenues in alternative manners. In recent years, scholars argue that the decision-making process of planning and development is become increasingly dependent on the need to raise such revenues, and therefore also the results of these decisions on the built environment (Swyngedouw in Bessusi, 2011).

In relation to that, the organization of the planning system also plays a crucial role into the position of local governments to provide for public services. The level of control that they possess over development and land can also give municipalities controls over location and financing of public service, as they are able to further regulate the standards under which private actors may or may not act.

Another factor that additionally impacts local gov-ernments is the ownership of land. As a precious asset on highly sought-after cities, it can be a large constraint on the provision of public goods and assets. Where land is publicly owned, the costs of implementation of a public service are excluded of the market costs of such property, while buying land from private parties would have prohibitive costs for local governments. Therefore, this becomes an influential factor into the decision of where these services will be the ability of local government to plan for its own

territory and citizens, due to being bound by other scales and actors into contractual arrangements. It is a two-folded process under which public goods need to be commodified to fit the private financing scheme, while being regulated by the state as a ‘market-mak-er’ (Birch and Siemiatycki 2016:192).

Education has not been an exception to these processes. The implementation of changes in edu-cation policy are often invoked under the narratives of educational crises, towards decentralization and outsourcing as better fitting solutions. Mifsud (2016) critically argues, on her study of the changes of the Maltese educational system, that the education policy has been reformed completely through the creation of a chimera of empowerment and freedom. According to her, decentralization process of education policy is legitimized through a discourse of empowerment and autonomy, when in fact they consist of re-centralizing control and privatizing provision, influenced by a neoliberalism project.

Under a framework of market and clientele, it

emphasizes the individual and a promise of self-man-agement through a reduction of the state, distancing the government while advancing on decentralization and ‘delegation of power authority and responsibility from the centre to the local institution” (Mifsud 2016, 451). This way government is perceived as becoming diffuse and empowering of individuals, but also more regulatory and punitive, decentralizing and centralizing simultaneously creating ‘governmentality constella-tions (Webb 2011, 735).

However, while decentralization and outsourcing of educational provision in an important aspect of how decentralization affects School Spatial Planning Practices, it is hardly the only one. Local governments actions in space are shaped by other aspects that can be decentralized to different degrees from central government, such as fiscal systems, planning sys-tems and land ownership patterns.

(11)

placed, especially for local governments.

Since the 1990s, the relationship between public land, services and private actors has become even more complex as long-term contractual arrangements for provision have been made through outsourcing mechanisms, such as PFIs and PPPs. Viewing public service and public land as an asset for local govern-ments to reduce expenditure and increase revenue has created systems of institutional lock-in of these assets to private or quasi-private actors which creates a new set of constraints onto public service provision by local governments (Birch & Siemiatycki, 2016; Raco, 2013)

(12)

3 | CASE SELECTION AND METHODS

In this following section, the process of case selection and methods will be described in greater detail. First, the explanation and process for case selection on similarities and differences will be unpacked, followed by how these are operationalized in a macro and local analysis through a combination of policy analysis, secondary data and literature, supplementary inter-views and spatial analysis.

Selecting Amsterdam and London as case studies departed from the understanding that both cities share similar characteristics as European cities, em-bedded in countries with strong welfare system after World War II, that have been going through neoliberal-izing changes in the last 40 years.

The English political and administrative framework is quite singular, shaped greatly by the use of the

Common Law for making decisions instead of a Con-stitution. Government is organized in a 2-tier system formed by local authorities and the national level, except in London, where there is a Metropolitan tier in the Greater London Authority with an elected Mayor. (Ryser & Franchini, 2015). Under this division, national government is responsible for the broader abstract framework that sets procedures and practices of the other levels in England. Meanwhile, local authorities have a direct role, including the statutory duty to de-velop plans, control dede-velopment, and provide several public services.

The Dutch administrative, political and legal framework shapes competencies, duties and re-sponsibilities between the levels of government. The Netherlands is a decentralised unitary 3-tier state, with a strong principle of self-governance of provinces Figure 05 - Location of London and Amsterdam, focused on the cities and their boroughs and districts. Source: Produced by author

(13)

and municipalities. (Ryser & Franchini, 2015) This implies that decision-making is shared by the three levels rather than imposed down and frames a con-sensus building rationale to policy development, the infamous polder-model.

Furthermore, both countries have historical similarities in school provision as statutory duties of local gov-ernments, which provides a stimulating parallel into the impacts of decentralization of local governments in these two realities. England and the Netherlands also score similarly in the level of school autonomy in decision-making demonstrated on Figure 02 (van Twist, M. et al, 2013), sharing the decisions with local government in the former and with central in the latter.

While both London and Amsterdam have similar backgrounds, they also differ in scale, national posi-tioning and contemporary policy development. These different perspectives and cultures uncover compel-ling insights on contemporary planning for service provision. In the case of London and Amsterdam, I ar-gue that the cases depart from a similar background – historically, economically and socially – which would expect to produce similar outcomes in spatial

planning for service provision. However, preliminary investigation into school provision has demonstrated different practices in the two cities.

The current literature on the theme has been de-veloped mostly by scholars in the field of public administration and education, with little application to urban planning. With this research, I intend to engage with and contribute to literature that crosses the boundaries between planning and governance struc-tures, while using service provision as an important conductive factor of investigation.

Developing intensive research and investigating a small amount of cases in depth (Swanborn, 2010) can uncover more nuanced perspective of these cities. As Ragin (1992) claims “Implicit in most social scientific notions of case analysis is the idea that the objects of investigation are similar enough and separate enough to permit treating them as comparable instances of the same general phenomenon.” Through immersive research in one case study at a time, each one is studied on its own context, collecting data from several sources of information, while applying an open tentative model, designed for the first case but adjust-ed in the face of every instance, nuances can be more easily perceived.

A case-oriented and comparative strategy for research seeks to appreciate complexity and to understand the different causal models involved in a given result (Pickvance, 2001). By initiating the inves-tigation by the unusual observed differences between the two cities allowing for a differentiating comparative analysis with multiple causation, under the lens of complexity of the social reality. As Pickvance high-lights “the diversity of causal processes created by the different patterns of development of different societies should be a prime focus of analysis and we should seek to build these into our explanations rather than rely on models of explanation which force us to exclude them.” (p. 8).

Authors discussing comparative methods (Tilly, 1984; Ragin, 1992, 2000; Byrne, 2005) highlight the im-portance of placing different instances and locations embedded in one system as ways to explain the varying relationships of the parts to the whole system. Figure 02 - Distribution of decision-making within levels of

government regarding Education. Source: van Twist, M. et al. (2013), “Coping with Very Weak Primary Schools: Towards Smart Interventions in Dutch Education Policy”, OECD Education

Working Papers, No. 98, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi. org/10.1787/5k3txnpnhld7-en

This is in clear contrast with causation as a clear line without over-time and place variation. As a matter of fact, this way of using methods relates to the theoretical view of processes of neoliberalization and decentralization that form the core of this research. As Byrne (2005) argues there is a need for an un-derstanding of reality that goes beyond a closed system, but rather sees it as the complex open system that is filled with potential for transformation and in a constant flux of change. Building the method for this investigation placing causation as complex and contingent, can “can help us to understand the various ways in which things have come to be as they are, the various ways in which they might be different, and - with luck and the wind in the right quarter - how social action might produce one possible future rather than another.” (Byrne 2005:101)

Therefore, investigating school spatial planning prac-tices as complex systems is logical, as they are not created under a vacuum. As a matter of fact, they are a product of several complex systems, nested within other complex systems and in intersection with other layers of complexity. The process in which these are combined and nested within each other is not linear and consensual, thus a range of possible forms may emerge even under the same apparent conditions. As Byrne (2005) states “History will matter. There will be path dependency. Context will matter. Agency will matter.” (p.105)

To understand this complex system, this research explored several systems and inputs that shape the forms of school spatial planning practices in London and Amsterdam. These systems are below organized and explained under the umbrellas of Macro and Local Analysis.

Macro Analysis

This research started with the question “Who decides where schools go?” and has found its way into an-swering “How do decentralization processes change school spatial planning practices?”. The process of how this change took place is deeply connected to the evolution of the methodology used and the variables added into the overall answer to both these questions.

The preliminary methodology expected that the an-swer to the research question would be implied in the governance networks for school provision in the two countries, with a particular emphasis on power and money exchanges between the actors.

Therefore, the process started with a broad overview and policy analysis related to the themes of education and planning in London to draw and understand such networks, as it was the first case to be investigated (Table 02). The language accessibility was an asset that facilitated extensive policy research into the topic of school governance in London, and allowed for a wide understanding of the system.

The following step was to repeat the process and investigate the governance networks in Amsterdam. Here, a major barrier was to source materials in En-glish, or to find the right policies in Dutch that could be translated or understood. Therefore, in addition to some official documents, a portion of the information for the Netherlands was retrieved from OECD reports on education in the country (Table 03).

Alongside policy analysis, supporting interviews were conducted with officers related to school provision in both cities, to supplement information on governance networks and relationships, and understand their prac-tice in school spatial planning. Two in-person meetings were developed with officers related to education provision in both cities, in a London borough and at the Municipality of Amsterdam (23-11-2018 and 05-06-2019 respectively). Both interviewees gave consent to the recording and using of anonymized information for research purposes orally. A supplementary call was also developed in London on the 12-12-2018.

Function Date Contact Role in Anal-ysis Education Officer – London Borough Council 23-11-2018 Meeting Background and practice understanding

Urban Planner -

Lon-don Borough Council 12-12-2018 Call

Extra information

Education Officer –

City of Amsterdam 05-06-2019 Meeting

Background and practice understanding Table 01: Supporting interviews

(14)

a large-scale data and policy investigation, with an emphasis on spatial analysis. The interviews done also showed a less prominent role of decision-making networks in school provision on its own, but rather as a process made out of enablers and constraints, in which the governance networks are one in more variables and determinants of school spatial planning practices.

As a matter of fact, the Dutch and English education systems seemed to move towards similarities in their networks, but with rather distinct practices and re-sults. Therefore, other variables needed to be added to explain the differences. Investigating the possible influences onto school spatial planning practices, three other main structural and two local causes surfaced: the planning and fiscal systems alongside the measures of after the 2008 crisis; and the local Access to such officers was challenging in London,

not only due to time constraints to reach interview-ees but mainly due to an overall unwillingness of officials to meet for interviews, or even to reply to email requests. This is closely related to the fact that schools, specifically academies, had been subject of quite a scandalous documentary released by the BBC in September 2018, where their directors were found to be diverting public money towards their own companies for maintenance works on buildings (“BBC One - Panorama, Profits before Pupils? The Acade-mies Scandal,” 2018)

This difficulty, alongside preliminary findings of the Amsterdam case, prompted a research design refocus. From a game-based participatory analysis of governance networks based on Net Map and gaming technologies (Schiffer & Hauck, 2010; Tan, 2017) to

Local Analysis

In the local analysis, a comparison between owner-ship of land and school spatial locations grounds the physical results to the processes necessary for their fulfillment, under the influence of the macro-analysis systems. Through the connection of all policy analysis content, supporting interview answers, media and documentation discourse, this research zooms into one area to demonstrate the role of all these variables into shaping responsibility and action in local service provision.

As discussed previously, public ownership of land can be a large constraint on the provision of public goods and assets. Therefore, I undertook a land ownership analysis of both London and Amsterdam. Information on land ownership in both cities is not promptly land ownership patterns combined with the planning

practice for service provision. The first three add further to the School Provision system in the Macro analysis, while the latter two are developed on a Local analysis.

As previously argued, fiscal systems have a substan-tial impact in local governments’ level of autonomy. In order to understand such system, I developed an extensive secondary literature review into fiscal anal-ysis of both countries, accompanied by a succinct examination of current expenditures and revenues of local governments in Amsterdam and London. Analogously, the planning systems were also investi-gated through secondary literature and data, as their organization also plays a crucial role into the position of local governments to provide for public services.

Table 02: Sources of London policy Table 03: Sources of Amsterdam policy

AMSTERDAM Policy Year Source

Onderwijs en onderzoek - Regering 2011 Rijksoverheid (National government)

OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in

Edu-cation: Netherlands 2014 2015 OECD Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators 2016 OECD

De gemeente en ‘haar’ openbaar onderwijs 2017

Janine Eshuis and Ronald Bloemers - Vereniging voor Openbare en algemeen toegankelijke Scholen (Association for open and generally accessible schools)

School board - explanation of concepts of education 2018 Wij leren (We learn)

Helft openbaar onderwijs heeft inmiddels zelfstandig

bestuur 2018

CBS (Central Office for Statistics and Research)

Stappenplan ontwikkeling schoolgebouw 2018

Internal work document from the Gemeente Amsterdam, provided by interviewee.

Eindrapport Ruimte voor Onderwijs 2018

SCHOOL VOORBEELDEN Inspiratieboek- Ruimte

voor Onderwijs 2018

LONDON Policy Year Source

Education Act 2011 UK Parliament

London Plan 2011 Greater London Authority

Establishing new maintained schools - Departmental advice for local authorities and new school propos-ers

2013 UK Department for Education

Changes to the System of School Organisation 2013 UK Department for Education

Making sure every child has a place at a good local

school 2015 LGA – Local Government Association

Opening and closing maintained schools - Statutory

guidance for proposers and decision-makers 2016 UK Department for Education

Educational excellence everywhere 2016 UK Department for Education

National planning policy framework 2018 UK Ministry of Justice

London Plan 2018 Greater London Authority

Converting schools to academies inquiry 2018 UK Parliament

The free school presumption - Departmental advice

(15)

The dataset was then developed into 3 analysis to explain the land ownership patterns of London, a. an overall overview of percentages of ownership in the city, public or other; b. the boroughs distribution of land on important categories, such as public and other, local, central and educational land; and c. a focus on one borough to demonstrate the role of this land as enablers and constraints of school spatial planning practices.

In Amsterdam, however, the data exists and is used by the municipality in their portal in a closed platform, not available for public download in GIS format. The original file that produces such information is called Basisregistratie Kadaster (BRK) and is owned and commercialized by the Kadaster, which is the Nether-lands’ Land Registry. A large issue is that the dataset contains broader information on ownership that gen-erates privacy concerns, and due to legal obligations, the Land Registry is not allowed to share full copies of the BRK, only a maximum of 1500 plots, and for a large investment, even with proposed discounts for

research purposes.

As this arrangement would not physically cover the research’s objectives, which is to analyze the entire city of Amsterdam, I proceeded to manually translate the current existing public non-sensitive information back into GIS format. Using the available plots data-set (Publieke Dienstverlening Op de Kaart – PDOK) and the available downloadable image maps from the municipality (Eigendom en Erfpacht – detail) the GIS information was recreated for the analysis purposes. Unlike London, the existing dataset of Amsterdam does not exclude public space, streets or even water bodies from their plots. The rationale behind it is that these assets can be used or leased for use in innovative manners, as happens with some plots in the city’s center, therefore I preserved such plots in the analysis. However, to rectify the data to allow for comparison with the London case, streets were implemented into a new category of ‘Public Space’ through a selection of ‘Gemeente Amsterdam’ plots

Dataset Source Type of data

Local Authority

Central Government, Welsh Ministers and Local Government including Property and Land – Cabinet Office

Addresses (not spatial)

Schools London School Atlas – Greater London Authority Point shapefile

Housing Estates

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Govern-ment does not have the information – list of largest housing estates in the UK

Names (not spatial)

London Fire Brigade (LFB) GLA Land and Property Database Addresses (not spatial)

Metropolitan Police (MET) GLA Land and Property Database Addresses (not spatial)

London Legacy Development

Company (LLDC) GLA Land and Property Database Addresses (not spatial) Greater London Authority GLA Land and Property Database Addresses (not spatial)

Public Brownfields Brownfield Land Register - GLA Shapefile

National Government Government property finder – Cabinet Office Addresses (not spatial) Table 04: Sources of GIS Datasets London.

Figure 07 – Map data processing for London. Source: Produced by author

Figure 06 – Amount of data processed for each city’s land ownership analysis. Source: Produced by author

available for public download and handling. Such lack of availability took substantial time and effort into producing the primary data for the local analysis of both cities.

In the case of London, it required the compilation of datasets from several different sources (Table 04) and formats, not necessarily spatial, which then had to be cross-referenced to an INSPIRE base of plots of land in London containing over 2.000.000 units1_.

The non-spatial datasets proceeded to be geocoded into spatial information using the OpenStreetMap basis. Alongside the other datasets, they were used for a Search by location into the INSPIRE polygons to produce the actual plots they are located in (Figure 07). Which produced the final dataset for analysis. 1 With such large datasets and processes to analyze and dissect, discrepancies might be found in some of the results. While the findings presented here create interesting preliminary discoveries, openly public and prepared data would allow for an even more precise analysis.

(16)

as enablers and constraints of school spatial planning practices.

The resulting dataset could then be used not only for the analysis of land ownership patterns of Amster-dam as a whole, but also for the separate districts analogously to London. Moreover, since data is more comprehensive than in the British case, it also allowed for an extra analysis, an overview of the specific ownership of primary and secondary schools’ land in without any buildings and visually regarded as

pas-sage rather than permanence areas.

Following this correction of the data, the analysis was parallel to the one developed for the London case: a. an overall overview of percentages of ownership in the city, public and others; b. the districts’ distribution of land on important categories, such as public and private, local, central and educational land; and c. a focus on one district to demonstrate the role of land

Dataset Source Type of data Plots Publieke Dienstverlening Op de Kaart – PDOK Shapefile

Ownership Eigendom en Erfpacht in detail – Maps Amsterdam Image file

Schools Non-residential functions map filtered – Maps

Amsterdam Shapefile

Table 05: Sources of GIS Datasets Amsterdam _{available sources, respecting its user agreement}

conditions where available.

Data collected was also based on permit and consent of the existing organizations where not readily and publicly available. Specifically in the case of land own-ership, the data was free of sensitive information, as in London data was only concerned with public bodies and Amsterdam was developed with broad categories of ownership translated from a public source, without details on the individual owners. Information requests and supporting information are available in section 9, Annex.

The supporting interviews were done on the basis of voluntary participation of interviewees with their informed consent for recording and use of material. Information is anonymized and used in combination with policy and data from other sources.

Amsterdam.

These results are then discussed under the light of the findings from the policy documents, unstructured interviews and even media coverage on the provi-sion of schools by both cities. Thus, it connects the macro-analysis of structural enablers and constraints of schools, such as the overall school provision, planning and fiscal systems with the physical results and planning practices on the ground that provide actual schools in actual neighborhoods.

Ethical considerations

Although this research has focused mainly on policy and data analysis, ethical considerations were a part of its development ensuring quality and integrity of the process. Policy and documentation used for devel-opment of the analysis was retrieved from publicly

(17)

This chapter will analyse the landscape that shapes school spatial planning practices on both London and Amsterdam from a perspective of national gov-ernment policies and systems to answer the research sub question “How does the macro-landscape of national systems and regulations enable and con-strain local governments’ ability to plan for school provision?”

First, I will focus on the responsibilities and exchanges between stakeholders involved in school provision in England and the Netherlands. Second, on the planning system of both countries and how they shape the environment. Third, on the fiscal systems that are positioned between the different branches of government as means of constraints and enabling. And finally, on understanding the changes made by both governments after the 2008-crisis and its conse-quences to service provision and local governments.

4.1 | SCHOOL PROVISION

SYSTEMS

The school provision system in the Netherlands holds a large parallel to the new Academies system being implemented in England. It is based on a private not-for-profit provision by School Boards, that are centrally funded and evaluated by national government. The system in the Netherlands has been adapted to this organization since the 1980’s, with emphasis on allowing for Universal Education and Freedom of choice. The English school provision system is being adapted to a similar composition based, however, on principles of increased efficiency and quality of private (not for profit) providers.

England

The education system in England is going through substantial change in the last 20 years. Several of these changes have been compiled and implemented

AN ANALYSIS OF THE

MACRO-LANDSCAPE OF SCHOOL

SPATIAL PROVISION

(18)

through the Education Act of 2011. In broader terms, the Education Act (2011) proposed a power central-ization towards the Department for Education - in the specific figure of the Secretary of State. This trend can be perceived in several layers of the act, by encom-passing the abolished agencies into the department, but also by growing power over decisions that were not inherently statutory and were devolved to other scales. Effectively, the Education Act also shapes local governments’ planning possibilities for school provision within their environments, reducing their reach and influence, which will be the focus of the following analysis.

Regarding primary and secondary education, the Education Act implements the preference for the Academy schools’ model, which are independent schools that are publicly funded. They are allowed more freedom and control over curriculum, hours, staff pay and conditions, and are accountable through a ‘funding agreement’ established with the public sector (Department for Education). Maintained schools are, on the other hand, a category of schools who are under the responsibility of the local authority. They must follow the National Curriculum, the SEN Code of practice and are not allowed to select pupils at primary level. In most cases, the LA owns the land and buildings, funds the school, employs the staff and controls admissions

In a sense that appears to be the intention of this Act, to encourage the switch from the Local Maintained Schools to Academies as an apparent way to unbur-den local authorities of funding some of their statutory duties, placing the burden on the National Level. That places local authorities in two possibilities for provision:

A. to use the Central Route, and relinquish the control on where the new school places will be pro-vided in the area. In this process the local authorities become consultation bodies, that assess the needs for school places and assist the sponsors and the DfE into finding cheap public sites for provision in the area of their interest.

B. Local authority has to create new school places only in the existing Maintained Schools, putting a

bigger strain on their already diminished budgets and spaces.

The Education Act (2011) establishes that all new schools will be Academies – which means they are publicly funded but privately provided. However, all Academies are connected through a Funding Agreement with the national government, through the Department for Education, which makes them a complete separate entity to the local authorities. These changes brought in the Education Act radically modify the possibilities for school provision in En-gland. Currently, the school system is composed of 80% maintained schools, which are funded and run by local authorities. Through the Education Act, there is a clear trend on reversing this landscape, with the halt of all maintained schools, incentives to convert those into academies and an overall centralization of decision power back to the national scale. In real terms, this means that a gap is created between those who hold the duty to create provision (LA) and those who now hold the power to make decisions on provision (DfE).

“195. In addition, these paragraphs have the effect that Academy proposals are no longer submitted to local authorities for approval. Instead, any Academy proposals entered into a section 7 competition will be referred to the Secretary of State, for him to decide if he wishes to enter into Academy arrangements with the proposer. “ (“Educa-tion Act (2011),” n.d.)

However, the statutory duty “to secure sufficient primary and secondary schools” lies fundamentally with the Local Authority Councils, in terms of need, distribution and location of places. The resulting scenario is a centralized decision-making process in clear opposition to the statutory duties, as the (Local Government Association, 2015) discusses:

“Where academies are preferred, decisions about sponsors should be taken locally to meet the needs and wishes of local parents and communities. The process for establishing and funding free schools is entirely run from Whitehall, although councils are increasingly trying to engage potential free school sponsors to make sure that new schools

are established in areas of need. If the free schools programme continues following the General Election, councils should have the role of judging and approv-ing free school proposals to ensure that new free schools are established where they are needed to support councils in their place planning duties.” This new school establishing arrangement bypasses the local authority as it reduces its control over the creation and maintenance of school in their locations. In order to understand to what extent this happens and how does it change the decision-making pro-cess, the process of application currently in place by

the Department for Education was mapped.

Under the new Education Act, the preferred process for establishment of a new school is through what is referred to as the Central Route.

In this system, most of the operational, decision-mak-ing and financial responsibilities lie with central government and the sponsors. The DfE launches waves of broad application process with set target national districts for school provision, to which the sponsors must apply. To build their application, the sponsors should have a suggested location (i.e. post Figure 10 - School provision process chart – England. Source: Policy analysis by author. For more information refer to methods section.