HC 269 Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Collaborative Schools Ltd (CSL)
Executive Summary
This response provides the historical context and motivations for 21 Trowbridge area schools to form a charitable company, Collaborative Schools Ltd (CSL) in April 2012. It seeks to illustrate the rationale and issues faced, as well as the vision for its existence. It shows that developing the partnership was a slow process, where trust between members and a shared purpose were organic. It explains how the substantial funding to deliver a key Government agenda provided the greatest impetus for collaboration and thus changed the way the schools worked and related to each other. Finding the right mechanism to enable a formal collaboration was not an easy journey with limited advice or support available; it took a degree of tenacity and persistence to achieve it, as well as financial and personnel capacity. This background provides the basis from which CSL then responds to the questions posed by the Education Committee. To more directly answer the questions, they have been personalised to reflect on the organisation, actions and behaviour of CSL.
The structure of the partnership provides for shared liability and shared ownership through democratic participation; however, this is limited as it is not entirely autonomous. CSL provides a wide range of activities that contribute to school improvement that are effectively made through economies of scale and the motivation to meet local needs. These are met in the main in the short term through legacy funding; however, there are concerns about the sustainability of the activity without sufficient future funding to support the infrastructure and to manage the balance between fundraising/income generating activity, in order to meet CSL’s needs.
There is a compelling moral incentive for collaboration whilst recognising that like any relationship, it needs to be worked at, together with an understanding that more than goodwill is required to ensure its sustainable future.
A number of strategies and agreements have enabled potential tensions between partner schools regarding school choice and competition to be moderated. These are described below.
1. Background and Context
1.1 Collaborative Schools Ltd (CSL) is a partnership of 21 Trowbridge schools (three secondary, one special and 17 primary). There are three converter academies and two sponsored academies in the partnership with nine Foundation schools (VC & VA). The schools serve the area of Trowbridge, Wiltshire’s County town, and surrounding villages, having close to 6,600 on roll. The Index of Multiple Deprivation indicates that two Trowbridge wards are in the 20% most deprived in the country. 1,240 (19%) of Children and Young People (C&YP) in the schools are eligible for the Pupil Premium.
2. Recent history of Partnership
2.1 There was some history of co-operation amongst some of the schools for a number of years via regular meetings of head teachers. It was with the onset of the ES agenda, especially from ~2008–09, that a more systematic approach to collaboration emerged both between CSL schools and a wide range of statutory and voluntary sector support services and professionals. The arrangement for the delivery and co-ordination of ES in Wiltshire allowed for funding to be devolved to community areas via a lead school, where a multi-agency steering group and a salaried co-ordinator ensured that the Government’s agenda was realised and met local needs. The funding levels were high enough to encourage a sharing of focus and vision for early intervention and targeted support, between schools and support agencies; the Local Authority’s (LA) Extended Services ensured Government requirements were met and provided accountability. This new way of partnership working occurred in parallel to a stronger sense of co-operation between head teachers which had been built following a residential conference early in 2010 supported by the LA, focussing on collaborative partnerships. There were sufficient head teachers with a similar mind set and shared focus to enable effective future partnership development.
2.2 Partnership working was further strengthened when Trowbridge Extended Services was successful in receiving additional funding to be a Pathfinder for the Disadvantage Subsidy Scheme in 2009, aimed at providing out of school hours activities for children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Locally branded as Free Time, it drew together all of the schools in an area-wide initiative. An independent review carried out by Newcastle University applauded its success and said, “…the commitment demonstrated by schools, support agencies and activity providers to work together in partnership”, was a significant reason. The high funding levels, the existing infrastructure and the potential benefits for the eligible children and young people all provided the incentive for the enhanced collaboration.
2.3 Through the ES Capital programme, a dedicated building was constructed on land at the edge of the lead school. This had a clear remit to be shared with all schools in the area to facilitate ES activities. This building became a great asset to the collaborative as it provided an independent physical base and office location for staff. The building was transferred on a lease with a peppercorn rent to CSL from the lead school (an academy) on the establishment of CSL and is now regarded as a great shared asset.
2.4 At this point, the schools decided to form a loose partnership called TASC (Trowbridge Area Schools Collaborative), to provide a structure through which they could operate more formally beyond the ES remit and the Extended Services Network Co-ordinator (ESNC) provided some capacity to facilitate the shared activities. It was agreed to confirm the ESNC as a permanent full time member of staff with some admin assistance. The arrangement however was limiting in that there was no easy way of sharing liability. The responsibility for employing the ESNC and other personnel together with the risks associated with the activities of the partnership were vested in the one lead school. Additionally, there were no formal bonds between the schools and the strength of the relationship was entirely based on trust.
2.5 With the impending central Government funding for ES through the LA about to cease and with it, central LA services and co-ordination, there was encouragement and support from the LA ES team to seek an autonomous and sustainable way forward. There was a clear desire from the head teachers to find a way of shaping the future together, who understood from past experiences that more could be achieved through working together.
2.6 Presented with a number of options, it was decided that a legally constituted structure be established and as the collaborative wished to become a registered charity, the best form to suit its needs was to incorporate and register as a company limited by guarantee. Had the Charitable Incorporated Organisation form been available at the time as expected, it would have been CSL’s preferred choice.
2.7 Funding and personnel resource to help the collaborative work through the process of creating the sustainable model was forthcoming from the LA’s Extended Services and together with the ESNC, they were instrumental in following the process through, with a small steering group of head teachers.
2.8 Extensive research showed little experience of this type of arrangement. Advice was sought externally through local and national social enterprise support organisations and other established school clusters. The LA had no experience of this situation and were challenged in their ability to advise and how to enable (or prohibit) the process. Eventually it was deemed possible through the School Company Regulations 2002. There were few places to go to find advice or assistance with this process. The regulations were not a good fit for the purposes; however, in the absence of any other provision, it was agreed that they could be worked within. The collaborative had to push boundaries and remove barriers at every turn to achieve this. A local co-operative development agency provided the governance and business advice and together with Co-operatives UK, the services to facilitate incorporation and charity registration. Schemes of delegation and codes of conduct to supplement the Articles of Association were created.
2.9 A business case could be made as there was substantial legacy funding from the ES allocation. CSL knew of examples elsewhere, where in similar situations the money had been divided amongst the schools once the accountability through the LA was removed. In TASC’s situation, there was a sense that partnership working would provide economies of scale. A commitment from schools to pay a per pupil on roll rate subscription, the possibility of income generation through the sale of services and potential future opportunities for funding through charitable funding streams, provided assurances that there was a sustainable future.
2.10 The partnership was officially registered as a company limited by guarantee on 1 April 2012 as Collaborative Schools Ltd (CSL) and charitable status followed in May 2012, with each of the member schools being joint owners. Staff members were TUPED to the new company.
2.11 On establishment, the company’s objects were identified as:
To promote and advance the education of children, young people and their families, especially within the wider Trowbridge community by:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
2.12 CSL now provides a core offer that all member schools can access free of charge and an optional offer where economies of scale allow for procurement of services at a more preferential rate or with sufficient volume to make it viable.
2.13 CSL now employs 4 members of staff and contracts 3 others. It is intending to employ an Education Psychologist from September 2013.
2.14 CSL produced its first end of year report at the end of April with an annual meeting. A summary of the first year’s activities are listed in Appendix 2. It is clear that the challenges in reduction in services from LA have been managed in the past year. The platform in terms of personnel, systems and infrastructure is in place to continue to fill these gaps; however, there are concerns about the medium to long term sustainability without adequate funding to assure this.
3 What are the advantages and disadvantages of CSL in its constituted form?
3.1 As a company limited by guarantee with charitable status and a governance structure that allows for democratic participation (see Appendix 1) the following are benefits/advantages:
Shared ownership—the schools are the registered owners of CSL not individual people.
Shared responsibility—vested across all schools.
A common identity—branding, website etc.
A shared focus—annual review.
Ability to employ staff in the name of CSL.
Shared resources, knowledge, expertise—through Learning Communities.
Continuing Professional Development and Training—additionally motivated by one of CSL’s schools being a Teaching School. Ensures local needs met in way we want, with facilitators we choose.
Economies of scale—shared procurement and services.
Transparency—all meetings open, minutes taken and freely available.
Self-accountability—CSL sets its own standards of judgement.
Open dialogue between schools and partners—multiple formal and informal opportunities.
Money mainly recycled within partnership and recognised partners giving local sustainability.
Democratic operation which is critically impartial and where no one school can dominates—every voice can be heard.
Reporting requirements to Companies House and Charity Commission ensures appropriate governance and financial practices.
3.2 The following are limitations/disadvantages:
Lack of total autonomy. The LA can determine whether schools become members or not (School Company Regulations 2002) and have rights to information on finances.
No external accountability for the partnership working.
Limited impact currently, for effective school to school/peer to peer support—need more involvement earlier when a school is likely to be placed in a category.
Inequality of contribution ie expertise/time/staff—inevitably the larger schools take on a bigger role, which needs to be managed well to prevent them actually or being perceived to be dominant/taken for granted.
Need to manage pressures of revenue generation through provision of external services against needs of own member schools.
CSL is for some schools a second or third partnership they are a member of. For example, the Foundation schools have their own networks as do the sponsored academies. This must be recognised in the expectations of these schools to play a full and active role.
4. How can highly performing schools be encouraged to co-operate better with others? Are there are any upsides or downsides for highly performing schools supporting others through partnerships
4.1 The pressure and desire for highly performing schools to maintain and not compromise their own performance limits their capacity to support other schools through partnerships. Financial incentives could alleviate this.
4.2 CSL recognises that there are highly skilled practitioners in every school. An alternative view would be to enable the mobilisation of talent across a partnership of schools. This is a challenge, as borne out by current beneficial limited practice. The biggest issue is how to cover absent staff when out supporting other schools and how to manage the transactions. The potential and benefit of this is unquestioned. Without funding and a co-ordinator it is unrealisable.
4.3 CSL recognises the benefit of teachers at all levels seeing different models of delivery. This could be facilitated across a partnership if funding were available to enable it.
5. Are there sufficient incentives for member schools to form meaningful and lasting relationships with other schools in the cluster?
If yes, what are they? If no, or not enough, what incentives would schools like?
5.1 The moral incentives and the understanding of the benefits of partnership working exist.
5.2 The demise of the LA and its services is a great incentive to promote collaboration in order to enable schools to survive the ever increasing environment of change and challenge. Being part of a cohesive partnership is better than being a single, potentially isolated school.
5.3 Experience has shown that it is a long journey and requires hard work and commitment to get to the point at which rewards can be enjoyed. The early stages are challenging and without some funding to facilitate the process of building the community, it is less likely to happen. An early strength in the CSL partnership was on account of the funding legacy from ES and a desire to get the best value from it. There was funding and staff in post to enable the development and setting up of an ambitious action plan.
5.4 Once the partnership is formed, many incentives are self-generating; however, there is a need for a driver and for active motivated members to maintain the momentum, as well as for sufficient funding to enable innovation.
5.4 A strength in meaningful and lasting relationships is the identification and recognition of common needs and issues. It is the capacity to facilitate the identification of these in a systematic way to enable effective action that is a requirement; this needs capacity and therefore funding to be realised.
5.5 The reliance on goodwill alone to make partnerships meaningful and lasting can result in an imbalance in giving and receiving. The partnership is weakened if members see the partnership as just being there to dip in and out of when there is something to be gained. There could be some internal recognition process that rewards giving.
5.6 The size of the partnership could be critical. CSL is large with 21 schools and there is scope for people to pull in different directions and smaller allegiances to be formed within the larger group.
6. How does tension between CSL member schools regarding school choice and competition get resolved or is limited?
6.1 Since the formation of TASC, primary schools have been less zealous at competitively recruiting pupils to their schools. There have been some difficult discussions.
The trust and friendships developed between individual heads through being a member of partnership have helped mitigate this. This has corresponded with a bulge in birth rates, which has reduced the pressures to fill schools.
6.2 CSL has an agreement between member schools that if a child’s parents want to move their child and they approach another school, that this school informs the child’s current school, so that there is an opportunity to resolve any issues that may be stimulating the desired change.
6.3 The LA determines the catchment areas of non-academy member schools. CSL member schools have an agreement in their code of conduct which requires them to be considerate of neighbouring schools when promoting their own school, particularly in not denigrating another school.
6.4 All primary children are taken to see both secondary schools at appropriate times early in Year 6 (the third secondary school is a Catholic school).
6.5 A “Fair Access Panel” made up of head teachers from every school discuss challenging placements and facilitate managed moves as necessary.
7. Does being a member of CSL help drive effective school improvement and if so how?
7.1 The existence of CSL is helping drive school improvement in the following ways:
Joint Continuing Professional Development (CPD) provides more opportunities tailored to meet needs—see appendix 2 for details.
The Learning Communities provide opportunities for networking and sharing of knowledge and experience.
The capacity to undertake bigger projects and engage quality facilitators/consultants in activities that some smaller schools wouldn’t be able to access without.
The pooling of funding and resources brings about economies of scale that can, for example, provide funding for the release of staff in addition to meeting training costs.
The head teachers have formed small groups to provide support and challenge to each other. CSL recognises the need for heads to be comfortable enough with each other to be able to challenge.
The opportunity to access new funding streams to support school improvement, that individual schools would not have had the capacity or capability to manage.
Joint observations of practice have been organised across settings and phases.
Benchmarking opportunities amongst its schools.
Formal and informal school to school support has increased.
Instant access to advice from peers.
Keeping up to date through regular meetings of peers.
The NQT programme developed by CSL schools to meet needs. It engages a high level of reflective practice. Early feedback from participants indicates it has been well received and effective.
Member schools have a protocol which allows for data on performance, attendance, MOSAIC etc. across both phases to be collated and shared amongst all schools. It is used to demonstrate year on year progress and analysed in order to inform strategy.
7.2 Future developments include:
The opportunities to set up local inspections—peer reviews between OFSTED inspections.
Devising more effective ways of sharing practice, insights and information at all levels.
Becoming more rigorous in school to school support, not just about being “soft” in how this is done but more challenging in helping each other “get over the bar”.
Encouraging professional excitement about quality.
7.3 In providing school-to-school support, it is recognised that those involved need the skills to work with other adults in this way. Being good at what they do is not enough.
7.4 CSL recognises that some of the collaborative activity that was new and innovative is now embedded and part of common routines. There are already multiple examples of improvements. There is the intention to undertake a number of evaluations during the summer of 2013 which will provide reflective feedback on joint activity for 2013–04.
8. Are converter academies’ requirements to support other schools, included in their funding agreements, sufficient and effectively policed?
8.1 The experience of CSL member schools is no.
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 2
EXTRACTED FROM THE END OF FIRST YEAR REPORT
1. Training
(i) Continuing Professional Development (CPD) provided through Collaborative Schools is intentionally organised not to provide a surplus and will typically be discounted or free to participants from member schools.
The following courses have been run this year:
(ii) Compliance:
Safer handling.
First Aid at Work.
Paediatric First Aid.
Minibus driving.
SERCO fire safety.
(iii) Teaching and learning:
Phonics.
Four courses were organised, each attended by an average of 20 participants, from both cluster non-cluster schools.
Spelling, grammar and punctuation.
The training programme consists of a cross phase overview for senior leaders, followed by four separate training sessions at each phase. One course was run during year and there are plans in place for further delivery.
Talk for Writing.
A programme of engagement with a number of member schools.
Improving Teacher Programme (ITP).
This six session programme has been designed for teachers who want to advance, develop and improve their teaching and deliver consistently good lessons. The initial cohort was focused on teachers in KS1, KS2 and Y7 within KS3. One course has been run this year.
Outstanding Teacher Programme (OTP).
This nine session programme aims to give good and outstanding teachers a set of high level skills and strategies that enables them become consistently and sustainably outstanding. One course was organised during the year.
Specialist Leaders for Education (SLE).
This has involved 10 outstanding members of staff from middle and senior management, developing their skills to support other staff in similar roles.
Practice Development Partners (PDP).
This programme has been piloted with the intention of a wider roll out from September 2013. The programme develops the confidence and skill set of teaching staff allowing them to offer peer to peer support.
NQT.
(iv) Leadership and management:
OFSTED update.
(v) Behaviour & Inclusion:
Money Matters—Welfare Reform (Wiltshire Money).
Hidden Sentence—impact on children when parents go to prison.
(vi) Other:
Effective grant writing (open as income generating opportunity to non CSL member schools).
(vii) Governors:
Health & Well Being.
2. Learning Communities & Joint Practice Development (JPD)
Learning Communities comprise groups of staff, interested in developing their knowledge and expertise in a specialist area through joint practice development. The Communities or Forums usually have between 10–15 members who meet termly and provide opportunities for local networking, sharing practice and exploring and developing relevant pedagogies. Needs driven, they exist in the following areas and have proven to be effective, responsive and time efficient in providing staff development for schools.
Literacy.
Maths.
Early Literac.
ICT.
PE.
PSA network.
School Business Managers.
SENCO.
Early Years.
Head teacher Support and Challenge Triads.
3. Partnership Working
We have developed relationships with a range of partners to maximise the impact of our work. These mainly contribute to and continue to strengthen the work of the Every Child Matters and Community Partnership group.
Some examples of our partnership working include:
The Ethnic Minority Advisory Service (EMAS) who work with us on the English as an Additional Language forums (EAL). These forums bring together parents whose English is their second language and provide translated information on current issues.
Hope Debt Advisory Service. A face to face money advice service, operating weekly out of the Hub, providing free debt counselling to our families.
The Multi Agency Forum. This provides a co-ordinated, connected and informed response to the needs of children and their families with issues that generally have not been addressed successfully through other means. The termly meetings are attended by school representatives and up to 15 partner agencies.
4. Hub Access
The Hub, as well as acting as the company offices, is heavily used for CSL activities and by member schools. External lettings to our partners, generates useful income however the challenge is to ensure an appropriate balance.
5. Transition Work
A clear benefit of working across primary and secondary schools, allows for planned transition work between phases. The following have been developed, established or consolidated this year:
A common transfer form (CTF). This was developed by a group of senior teachers from member schools. Being produced to meet our needs, it ensures the most appropriate information is shared with secondary schools at the point of transfer.
Year 5 taster days. These provide the opportunity for pupils from this year group to visit our secondary schools.
Summer camp—targeting children from economically disadvantaged families
Cross phase visits. These provide staff with a co-ordinated opportunity to visit primary or secondary schools as appropriate. Visits can include
Learning walks, pupil tracking and curriculum awareness.
6. Health & Well Being & Emotional Resilience Project
The project was commissioned by NHS Public health as a pathfinder to seek ways to optimise and improve the support offered to young people growing up in Trowbridge in promoting their health, well-being and emotional resilience (H&WB and ER). It is providing for research to scope and review needs alongside current supportive practice and service provision to identify any gaps and opportunities for improvement. This has also involved the partnership with the Children’s Society and their Good Childhood project.
The second part of the project was to focus on the development and sustainability of Multi-Agency Health & Well Being Drop-Ins across the county. This work has now diminished as schools are unable to support Drop-Ins with the model that was promoted through the Local Authority.
7. Procurement
The School Business Managers group meet termly to identify joint procurement opportunities where economies of scale will provide beneficial savings to member schools. The group has been identifying the role it can play and feeling its way, as it has evolved over the year.
8. Consultancy
An income generating consultancy service was devised and promotional materials produced. This can provide advice and guidance on creating a governance model based on a charitable company model for interschool collaboration. The service was bought by three school clusters in Wiltshire.
9. Other
(i) Student and family counselling service:
This provides 39 hours of counselling time available to children from member schools, through three counsellors who work from the three secondary schools and the Hub.
The service is also commissioned out to a primary school in the NE of the County at a commercial rate.
(ii) Multi-Agency Health & Well Being Drop-Ins:
Drop-in clinics operate at The Clarendon Academy and The John of Gaunt school. CSL has held regular review meetings with all those involved and collects usage data.
(iii) Parenting support network:
The network includes colleagues from the Children’s Centres.
The following parenting programmes have been available in the past year:
Triple P primary and teen programmes—an evidenced based positive behaviour management. Also delivered to parents whose second language in English, run in partnership with EMAS.
Understanding and managing your child’s anger.
Understanding and managing your child’s challenging.
Behaviour.
(iv) The Trowbridge Youth Parliament:
This consists of 50 representatives from all CSL member schools. The group work together to progress local issues which matter to them, finding ways to address the challenges and so play a role in improving the local community. Projects in the past year have included an anti-social behaviour media campaign and a mosaics public art display in Trowbridge Park commemorating the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games.
(v) Arts project. An imaginative project involving all 21 schools and some community involvement has been planned, to be launched in June 2013 and tying in with two Trowbridge community arts festivals in October 2013 and March 2014. Called “Art Trowbridge” and producing pieces of visual art depicting imagery of life in Trowbridge, the intention is to create an indoor Arts Trail in public places around the area.
10. Fund Raising Activity
It is a very difficult time to be sourcing external funding. All of the major funding advice agencies caution about having realistic expectations, as levels and sources of funding decrease and the demand on them increases.
It is regrettable that despite a number of what were considered as strong applications, we have had limited success with fund raising through applications to charitable trusts and foundations. For example, a funding bid to BBC Children in Need for a project involving emotion coaching for children and young people in partnership with Bath Spa University involved substantial personnel resource and regrettably was unsuccessful. A funding application to the Support Fund for State Schools with Service Children and another to the Ironmongers Charity, both for funding to provide targeted support, were also unsuccessful.
As we move into our second year of operation we will review our fundraising needs and strategy to ensure that time and resource is being wisely devolved.
Through the services of a consultant, each school was offered access to a day of time to help source appropriate funding streams and make applications.
October 2013