HC 269 Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the Liverpool Learning Partnership
The Liverpool Learning Partnership has been in existence formally since September 2013. The Partnership considered the following models on which to base its organisation:
An informal structure.
A co-operative.
A company limited by guarantee.
An educational trust.
The Partnership, following consultation with its constituent parts, has opted to become a company limited by guarantee. This provides a degree of legal protection for those acting on behalf of the Partnership and allows the LLP to commission services, hold bank accounts and recruit staff.
A number of Partnerships are growing up around the country. Most of these appear to cover a specific phase of education (eg Primary or Secondary.) The Blackpool and Plymouth partnerships, for example, concentrate on Primary education. Liverpool’s model, however, is particularly inclusive and ambitious. The LLP is completely cross-phase covering Children’s Centres, Early Years (both mainstream and PVI), Primary, Special and Secondary. The LLP also includes the local FE college. Membership of the Partnership is open to mainstream schools, academies, private schools, Free schools, UTCs, Studio Schools etc.
The strength of this approach is that it promotes the philosophy of learning organisations taking responsibility for all learners in the city and allows for a strategic vision for all learning in Liverpool to be secured.
How highly performing schools could better be encouraged to cooperate with others
The LLP has the philosophy that no learner or learning organisation will be left behind, or will become isolated or vulnerable.
Liverpool has over 80% of its schools which are in “good” or “outstanding” Ofsted categories. The Partnership also has three Teaching Schools as members. The LLP determines the use of funding for supporting Primary Schools which are vulnerable, which is de-delegated funding.
The Partnership has been able to arrange for three teachers to be seconded from successful Primary schools. Two have been placed in a school which is in Special Measures with the third allocated to a school which has received a notice to improve. In the case of the latter of these schools the Partnership is acting in a sponsor role to draw resources to that school from successful schools in the city. The LLP is currently in discussion with the DfE with the expectation that it will become an Academy sponsor, on a formal basis.
The LLP is presently receiving membership contributions from learning organisations in the city. This money will be used to fund a variety of initiatives. These include devising a curriculum for Liverpool learners, which draws on best practice as regards implementing national curriculum requirements but also capitalises on the city’s cultural and sporting offer. Also an initiative to improve reading standards in the city is being designed at present. Schools will also be offered free access to a new city-wide, pupil-tracking system. Practitioners and governors from successful schools are making a contribution to these new initiatives by sitting on the Task Groups that are taking responsibility for their implementation.
Academies have thus far indicated that they wish to co-operate with all learning organisations in the city through involvement in the Partnership.
Whether schools have sufficient incentives to form meaningful and lasting relationships with other schools
Liverpool has a proud history of strong relationships between schools. There remains a commitment for the concept of “the family of schools” to be retained. Schools continue to work together through:
Headteacher managerial associations.
Learning Networks.
SEN consortia.
The Liverpool Learning Partnership.
The main incentive to form meaningful and lasting relationships is to secure consistently high provision across the city and to enable school leaders to contribute directly to a strategic vision for the whole education service.
The LLP believes that the Government should take steps to require partnerships to be set up in all Local Authorities.
If and how the potential tension between school partnership and cooperation, and school choice and competition can be resolved
Schools welcome being autonomous organisations. Competition is accepted as a fact which can motivate schools to always strive to be the best they can be. But harmful and unnecessary competition will be frowned upon by the LLP. So schools seem prepared to accept that they can be both independent and interdependent.
Members of LLP are asked to sign a “memorandum of understanding” to ensure that they adhere to the principles of the Partnership and act in an ethical manner.
Whether converter academies’ requirements to support other schools, included in their funding agreements, are sufficient and are effectively policed
The Liverpool Learning Partnership is well placed to be a vehicle for the securing of school-to-school support. The LLP has opened discussions with the sponsors of one of the city’s converter academies to model effective liaison between the sponsor and the Partnership concerning providing school support.
The Partnership will monitor how positive outcomes are secured through school-to-school support.
However there would not appear to be any formal arrangements, that are known to the LLP, for the “policing” of such support.
Whether academies sponsored by another school receive sufficient support from their sponsor
Liverpool does not presently have any academies sponsored by another school.
Whether school partnerships drive effective school improvement
The Liverpool Learning Partnership believes that partnerships do drive forward school improvement.
The LLP has been directly involved in the work of the Mayor’s Education Commission. The Commission is chaired by Estelle Morris and is expected to come forward with a range of recommendations which will impact positively on school improvement.
The Partnership has drawn up a protocol, together with the Local Authority, which describes explicitly the LLP’s roles and responsibilities as regards school improvement.
The LLP can summon a range of resources which can be “donated” by the city’s learning organisations to support school improvement.
The secondment of teachers, arranged by the LLP, has already secured significant improvements in two schools.
The LLP initiative on Reading will certainly improve standards in the city’s schools.
Whether there are any additional upsides or downsides for highly performing schools supporting others through partnerships
In cases where teachers are seconded to other schools the staff in question derive a broadening of experience, career development and the possibility of enhanced status and pay. This upside should be balanced with a potential down-side that a secondment could destabilise the “donor” school through a loss of expertise. However this should be prevented by detailed discussion and planning with the “donor” school to ensure this is not likely.
A downside of a long-term secondment is its high cost. However the Partnership is drawing on the experiences of the London Challenge in trialling shorter term arrangements where staff from strong schools are placed to work alongside others. Such arrangements are less expensive. Donor schools can also be granted “credits”, rather than reimbursement, whereby the Partnership provides a certain number of days of support to the donor school.
Openness and trust are important factors in school-to-school-support. However a downside could be a breach of confidentiality relating to the vulnerable school’s circumstances. This can be prevented through clear protocols on the sharing of information and data.
October 2013