HC 269 Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Professor Mel Ainscow, Centre for Equity in Education, University of Manchester
Summary
The evidence presented in this paper is drawn from the experience of the Greater Manchester Challenge, a three-year project, which involved over 1,100 schools, in ten local authorities. Building on the findings of earlier research, including ideas developed through the earlier London Challenge, the approach involved networking and collaboration within and between schools. This provided the basis for what has been described as a “self improving school system”.
In summary, the strategies developed within Greater Manchester were as follows:
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
All of this has significant implications for national policy makers. In order to make use of the power of collaboration as a means of achieving both excellence and equity in our schools, they need to foster greater flexibility at the local level in order that practitioners have the space to analyse their particular circumstances and determine priorities accordingly. This means that policy makers must recognise that the details of policy implementation are not amenable to central regulation. Rather, these have to be dealt with by those who are close to and, therefore, in a better position to understand local contexts.
School Partnerships and Cooperation: Lessons from the Greater Manchester Challenge
1. In recent years, my colleagues and I have carried out a series of studies that have generated considerable evidence that school-to-school collaboration can strengthen improvement processes by adding to the range of expertise made available (see references below). Together, these studies indicate that school-to-school collaboration has an enormous potential for fostering system-wide improvement, particularly in challenging urban contexts. More specifically, they show how collaboration between schools can provide an effective means of solving immediate problems, such as staffing shortages; how it can have a positive impact in periods of crisis, such as during the closure of a school; and, how, in the longer run, schools working together can contribute to the raising of expectations and attainment in schools that have had a record of low achievement. There is also evidence here that collaboration can help to reduce the polarization of schools according to their position in “league tables”, to the particular benefit of those students who seem marginalised at the edges of the system, and whose performance and attitudes cause increasing concern.
2. For the most part, these studies focused on situations where schools had been given short-term financial incentives linked to the demonstration of collaborative planning and activity. Nevertheless, they convince us this approach can be a powerful catalyst for change, although it does not represent an easy option, particularly in policy contexts within which competition and choice continue to be the main policy drivers.
3. The most convincing evidence about the power of schools working together comes from our recent involvement in the Greater Manchester Challenge. This three-year project, which involved over 1,100 schools in ten local authorities, had a government investment of around £50million. The decision to invest such a large budget reflected a concern regarding educational standards in the city region, particularly amongst children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. The approach adopted was influenced by an earlier initiative, the London Challenge.
4. After three years the impact was significant in respect to overall improvements in test and examination results, and, indeed, the way the education system carries out its business. So, for example, Greater Manchester primary schools now outperform national averages on the tests taken by all children in England. And, in the public examinations taken by all young people at 16, in 2011 secondary schools in Greater Manchester improved faster than schools nationally, with the schools serving the most disadvantaged communities making three times more improvement than schools across the country. During the same period, the number of schools below the Government’s floor standard decreased more than it did in other areas of the country. In addition, the proportion of “good” and “outstanding” schools, as determined by the national inspection system increased, despite the introduction of a more challenging framework.
5. The overall approach of the Greater Manchester Challenge emerged from a detailed analysis of the local context, using both statistical data and local intelligence provided by stakeholders. This drew attention to areas of concern and also helped to pinpoint a range of human resources that could be mobilized in order to support improvement efforts. Recognising the potential of these resources, it was decided that networking and collaboration should be the key strategies for strengthening the overall improvement capacity of the system. More specifically, this involved a series of inter-connected activities for “moving knowledge around”.
6. In an attempt to engage all schools in processes of networking and collaboration, Families of Schools were set up, using a data system that groups between 12 and 20 schools on the basis of the prior attainment of their students and their socio-economic home backgrounds. The strength of this approach is that it partners schools that serve similar populations whilst, at the same time, encouraging partnerships amongst schools that are not in direct competition with one another because they do not serve the same neighbourhoods. Led by head teachers, the Families of Schools proved to be successful in strengthening collaborative processes within the city region, although the impact was varied.
7. In terms of schools working in highly disadvantaged contexts, evidence from the Challenge suggests that school-to-school partnerships are the most powerful means of fostering improvements. Most notably, the Keys to Success programme led to striking improvements in the performance of some 200 schools facing the most challenging circumstances. There is also evidence that the progress that these schools made helped to trigger improvement across the system. A common feature of almost all of these interventions was that progress was achieved through carefully matched pairings (or, sometimes, trios) of schools that cut across social “boundaries” of various kinds, including those that separate schools that are in different local authorities. In this way, expertise that was previously trapped in particular contexts was made more widely available.
8. Another effective strategy to facilitate the movement of expertise was provided through the creation of various types of hub schools. So, for example, some of the hubs provided support for other schools regarding ways of supporting students with English as an additional language. Similarly, so-called “teaching schools” providing professional development programmes focused on bringing about improvements in classroom practice. Other hub schools offered support in relation to particular subject areas, and in responding to groups of potentially vulnerable groups, such as those categorised as having special educational needs. In this latter context, a further significant strategy involved new roles for special schools in supporting developments in the mainstream.
9. Significantly, we found that such collaborative arrangements can have a positive impact on the learning of students in all of the participating schools. This is an important finding in that it draws attention to a way of strengthening relatively low performing schools that can, at the same time, help to foster wider improvements in the system. It also offers a convincing argument as to why relatively strong schools should support other schools. Put simply, the evidence is that by helping others you help yourself.
10. Whilst increased collaboration of this sort is vital as a strategy for developing more effective ways of working, the experience of Greater Manchester showed that it is not enough. The essential additional ingredient is an engagement with data that can bring an element of mutual challenge to such collaborative processes. We found that data was particularly essential when partnering schools, since collaboration is at its most powerful where partner schools are carefully matched and know what they are trying to achieve. Data also matters in order that schools go beyond cosy relationships that have no impact on outcomes. Consequently, schools need to base their relationships on evidence about each other’s strengths and weaknesses, so that they can challenge each other to improve. A team of expert advisers had a central role here, working alongside senior school staff in carrying out the analysis and, where necessary, mobilizing support from other schools.
11. In order to facilitate this kind of contextual analysis, strategies and frameworks were devised to help schools to support one another in carrying out reviews. In the primary sector, this involved colleagues from another school acting as critical friends to internally driven review processes; whilst in secondary schools, subject departments took part in “deep dives”, where skilled specialists from another school visited in order to observe and analyse practice, and promote focused improvement activities. The power of these approaches is in the way they provide teachers with opportunities to have strategic conversations with colleagues from another school.
12. The powerful impact of the collaborative strategies developed in the Greater Manchester Challenge points to ways in which the processes used within individual schools can be deepened and, therefore, strengthened. This requires an emphasis on mutual critique, within schools and between schools, based on an engagement with shared data. This, in turn, requires strong collective commitment from senior school staff and a willingness to share responsibility for system reform.
13. The work of the Challenge can be seen to have involved a series of interconnected strategies that fostered stronger social capital. In particular, these strategies helped to break down social barriers within schools, between schools, and between schools and other stakeholders, in order to facilitate the sorts of mutual benefit that I have described. However, it is important to recognize that, within the context of changing and, at times, contradictory national policies, the gains made through such approaches were hard won, and remained fragile and easily lost.
14. Here, continuing tensions regarding priorities and preferred ways of working between national and local policy makers, and, indeed, between schools and local authorities, were factors that continued to create barriers to progress. So, for example, those near to central government often remained pre-occupied with achieving short-term gains in test and examination scores in ways that can create barriers to efforts for promoting sustainable improvements. Coupled with this was a mistrust of local authorities—the staff of which were sometimes seen as part of the problem, rather than part of the solution—and doubts about the need to have separate strategies that fit particular contexts.
15. The creation of education systems where improvement is driven by schools themselves, and that involves cooperation between schools, and between schools, begs questions regarding the roles of local authorities. Indeed, it raises the possibility that the involvement of a middle level administrative structure may not even be necessary. The authors of an influential McKinsey report, having analysed “how the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better”, express their surprise at the critical role that what they call the “mediating layer” plays between school delivery and central government. This leads them to conclude that sustaining improvements in the longer term requires “integration and intermediation” across each level of the system, “from the classroom to the superintendent or minister’s office”.
16. The authors of the McKinsey report go on to suggest that the specific functions the mediating layer plays are: providing targeted support to schools; acting as a buffer between central government and the schools, while interpreting and communicating the improvement objectives in order to manage any resistance to change; and enhancing the collaborative exchange between schools, by facilitating the sharing of best practices, helping them to support each other, share learning, and standardise practices.
17. Our experience in Greater Manchester suggests that local authority staff can have an important role to play, not least in acting as the conscience of the system—making sure that all children and young people are getting a fair deal within an increasingly diverse system of education. In order to do this, they need to know the big picture about what is happening in their communities, identifying priorities for action and brokering collaboration. I experienced many situations where local authority colleagues found these changes challenging, particularly during a time of reducing budgets. Nevertheless, I remain committed to the view that local coordination—the presence of an effective “mediating layer”—is essential.
18. Finally, all of this has significant implications for national policy makers. In order to make use of the power of collaboration as a means of achieving both excellence and equity in our schools, they need to foster greater flexibility at the local level in order that practitioners have the space to analyse their particular circumstances and determine priorities accordingly. This means that policy makers must recognise that the details of policy implementation are not amenable to central regulation. Rather, these have to be dealt with by those who are close to and, therefore, in a better position to understand local contexts. They should be trusted to act in the best interests of the children and young people they serve, and encouraged to work together, pooling their knowledge and experience, for the benefit of students and teachers alike.
Background Reading in Relation to this Submission
Ainscow, M (2012). Moving knowledge around: strategies for fostering equity within educational systems. Journal of Educational Change. 13(3), 289–310
Ainscow, M, Dyson, A, Goldrick, S and West, M (2012). Developing Equitable Education Systems. London: Routledge
Ainscow, M and West, M (eds.) (2006). Improving urban schools: Leadership and collaboration. Open University Press
Hutchings, M, Hollingworth, S, Mansaray, A, Rose, R and Greenwood, C (2012). Research report DFE-RR215: Evaluation of the City Challenge programme. London: Department for Education
Mourshed, M, Chijioke, C and Barber, M (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. London: McKinsey & Company
October 2013