HC 269 Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the Greater Manchester partnership
Part 1: Collaboration in Greater Manchester
The Greater Manchester Challenge, a government school improvement initiative which allocated funding to the 10 Greater Manchester Boroughs between April 2008 and March 2011 was instrumental in improving standards across all 10 Boroughs and also most importantly established a system for developing school to school support across local boundaries.
In April 2011 in order to preserve the successes of the Challenge two organisations were set to take forward the legacy of the Challenge.
1.1 The Greater Manchester School Improvement Partnership Board
The Board was set up in consultation with the Head of the Challenge, Professor Mel Ainscow, the Greater Manchester Chief Executives’ Group and leading headteachers to help to coordinate collaborative school improvement activities across the sub region.
Its high level objectives are to:
provide mutual, collective accountability and challenge to the overall GM school improvement system;
ensure interface and coordination between LAs, the GM “By Schools for Schools” body and teaching schools; and
identify and discuss areas of common/shared challenges, approaches and practices, including opportunities for closer collaborative working or moves towards shared services.
Its specific tasks are to:
enhance and influence the development of efficient and effective school improvement solutions;
build leadership capacity in schools across GM and facilitate the development of school to school support and partnership;
facilitate the sharing of good practice;
monitor the progress of collaborative actions taken;
identify and pursue opportunities for additional funding and coordinate activity across GM; and
develop and oversee an effective communication system which ensures that information is disseminated to all heads and LA officers.(including the organisation of termly School Improvement Conferences).
The membership is as follows:
Two Directors of Children’s Services (including Chair).
Three teaching school representatives.
Three By Schools for Schools representatives.
Three Heads of School Improvement/Education lead officer representatives.
One National College of School Leadership representative.
One Higher Education representative Former Leader of the greater Manchester Challenge).
Board secretary.
Members of the Board are charged with disseminating papers and information from the Board to the groups they represent.
1.2 By schools for schools
This organisation was set up by group of Leading GM Headteachers, supported by DfE, GM Challenge Leaders and GM Chief Execs Group. It originated prior to setting up of teaching schools, but teaching schools are part of membership and BSfS activities complement the development of teaching schools.
It is now formally established as a company limited by guarantee. Current Directors are National Leaders of Education and Retired Local Authority Director of Education and Early Years. The Governance group challenges and supports the work of BSfS Its membership considers of headteacher representatives from all 10 GM Local Authorities, Chair of LA School Improvement Officer group, National College Associate and NLG representation:
Philosophy: Underpinned by strong moral purpose which recognises that all schools have a responsibility to work together, share expertise and support each other (and particularly the most vulnerable) in order to build capacity in the system and ensure the best possible outcomes for all children across GM.
Purpose: BSfS was set up as a brokerage and commissioning organisation to develop of a coherent programme of school to school support and provide a single point of contact for LAs & schools. It is also responsible for the operational management of GM N/LLE/NLGs on behalf of NCTP and acts as a conduit for NCL & DfE.it is also acts as a stabilizer of market forces and a lobby group and consultation body.
BSfS provides access to all Greater Manchester National, Local, Specialist Leaders of Education, National Support Schools and National Leaders of Governance. The programmes offered include:
Whole school/focussed diagnostics.
Teaching and learning programmes.
Whole school and subject or phase specific leadership and management support including coaching and mentoring, support with action planning, management of staff, monitoring and evaluation etc.
Executive Headteacher support package.
Staff development and training packages for groups and individuals.
Bespoke packages tailored to individual school needs.
1.3 Development of school to school support in the 10 boroughs
All GM boroughs are developing school to school support process and partnerships within the borough and information about these is shared at the termly Conferences and through the partnership Board minutes.
1.4 An example of effective school to school support from LA Board Member: Wigan
Background
Wigan Council’s strategy for school improvement supports strong collaboration and partnerships to develop best practice between schools, whilst at the same time ensuring that the Local Authority delivers its statutory school improvement functions.
Schools in Wigan work within one of eight consortia to identify strengths and areas for development in each of their schools. Each consortia is led by a serving Headteacher or a team of serving Headteachers, all of whom lead high performing schools. The lead Headteachers meet regularly with Local Authority officers as members of the School Improvement Board. The leaders work collaboratively with the schools in their consortia to develop plans and commission services that address areas for development within the consortia. They utilise the commissioning budget provided by the LA to support improvement and develop good practice.
The LA and the consortia produce an agreed process of identifying schools who are vulnerable in terms of underperformance, as well as those who have good practice. This process (termed “categorisation”) in the Wigan School Improvement Strategy is used by the consortium to determine priorities for support and to share good practice. The Local Authority ensures that all schools who receive support are monitored so that the impact of the strategy on individual school improvement is evaluated and the local intelligence on schools is maintained centrally. A LA Intervention protocol forms part of the framework and can be triggered by Lead Headteachers where disengagement occurs or support is not embedded or facilitating rapid improvement. LA Officers are then in a position to undertake formal powers of intervention if required.
Advantages of the Model
It is a systems led strategy which means that the schools are able to learn from the best leadership practice in order to drive improvement throughout the whole LA. School Governors are also seen as key players in the strategy and also work in consortia to share effective practice in governance. Governors are given information on the categorisation of their school by the school improvement boards.
Headteachers of high performing schools are identified as school improvement leads and are members of the school improvement boards. They are also funded for the time they give to school to school support. This means that they are fully engaged and play a major part in developing and driving the strategy forwards. A number of leads are also engaged as Additional Inspectors by OfSTED and are also acting as NLEs/LLEs. The strategy enables the knowledge that they have gained whilst undertaking these roles to be shared across schools.
The system is centrally co-ordinated by the LA and all schools are engaged in the strategy from the outset, whatever their status, whether they be converter academies, maintained schools or Voluntary Aided schools.
School leaders and teachers are able to gain support from practitioners and experts within schools and they can see how effective strategies work in day to day practice.
The model encourages joint practice development across a number of schools and learning from this practice can then be shared throughout the LA.
Support can be tailored to meet the needs of individual schools, thus avoiding a less effective and potentially more costly, “one size fits all” approach.
The model encourages rich learning conversations between school leaders. New Headteachers to the borough find being part of a strong consortia of schools an invaluable source of support.
School leaders who are engaged in supporting other schools say that they gain a lot from undertaking this work, not only in terms of the skills they personally develop whilst working with other leaders, but also in terms of the ideas they bring back to their own schools.
Relationships between the LA and schools are strengthened by the opportunities for closer partnership working.
Potential conflicts of interest between schools, particularly around competition for school places, can be managed sensitively, strategically and locally by the LA, so that these do not become barriers to effective collaboration. Where schools require support, but feel that this is not available by schools within the consortia, the LA is able to broker support from schools in other Local Authorities using the wider network of LA partnerships.
Other Aspects of the Strategy
Systems and processes are kept purposely simple and clear. A data sharing agreement and protocol has been developed with schools. The LA provides the infrastructure, the performance data and administrative support, which means that school leaders, as well as other staff in schools, are able to get on with the business of providing support.
There are clear processes to support school improvement leads should they feel that a school is not engaging positively or if the support is not having the intended impact.
Nationally driven strategies are developed locally to fit into the overarching LA strategy for school improvement. An example of this is the close working with the two teaching schools to commission SLE support for schools.
Part 2: Response to Specific Select Committee Questions
1. Advantages and disadvantages of partnership working
The Partnership attempts to provide a coherent approach to information sharing in an incoherent and rapidly changing environment.
BSfS provides a one stop shop for schools needing support who may otherwise fall through the gap if and until other collaboratives mature and develop a coherent service across GM.
A major advantage of school to school support is that, where it is successful, all parties benefit both the giver and the receiver. All learn from the experience both personally, professionally and to the benefit of both schools.
Concerns relate to the dependence on the enthusiasm and commitment of individuals to take things forward and the reducing amount of funding in the system to cover the real costs of on-going and systematic school to school support.
Where successful schools work together they can develop a barter system but vulnerable schools are not in this position and the supporting school needs funding in order to provide an adequate level of support.
Another concern relates to the lack of recognition in some schools of the importance of investing financially in CPD and staff development and training.
2. How highly performing schools could better be encouraged to cooperate with others
The proposal to include school to school support as one of the Ofsted criteria for receiving an outstanding judgement has significant merit and would act as an incentive to develop a more systematic approach to school to school support.
Otherwise, though most schools have a strong moral purpose and will provide support, some will continue to pay lip service to it.
3. Whether schools have sufficient incentives to form meaningful and lasting relationships with other schools
Schools are currently driven by a strong moral purpose and the recognition of the benefits their staff derive from providing support but incentives such as the Ofsted judgement and access to funding would be more likely to ensure that a systematic programme of school to school support is developed and maintained.
4. If and how the potential tension between school partnership and cooperation, and school choice and competition can be resolved
Schools have always grappled with this, though the development of the school to school support and the competitive market has intensified the focus.
Facilitating school to school support across boundaries goes some way of moderating this.
5. Whether school partnerships drive effective school improvement
The success of partnerships depends on setting clear parameters, baselines and targets at the start of the process and ensuring regular reviews and adjustments.
The receiving school must commit fully to the support rather than feeling that it is imposed and the support also needs to be a good match in terms of context, expertise, philosophy and personalities.
Adequate funding is also a key factor in the success or otherwise of the project.
Part 3: Teaching School Board Member Response to Specific Questions: Altrincham Grammar School from Girls
1. Advantages and disadvantages of partnership working
General collaboration, say under a Teaching School alliance, is fine if all support the ethos and values but it is very heavily reliant on co-operation. However, not all partners are “equally” engaged, leaving a burden on the more willing partners. Such partnerships should not be solely reliant on schools but look to include a broader range of partners such as universities, colleges, charities, to enhance the offering.
Under a more formal arrangement such as a trust of sponsored academies, there is the capability to make things happen in a more strategic and consistent way. There is more ownership by all. Directors of the Trust ensure progress and improvement.
2. How highly performing schools could better be encouraged to cooperate with others
Highly performing schools, or any schools, should not be touting for business but should be more organised through a proper network to ensure quality training and support to the system as a whole. An example could be that certain kinds of training could be shared across a region of Teaching Schools. An example could be NW divided into smaller regions where applicants travel to their assigned TS for training and the TS alliance placements. The applicants could have a choice of region but not which TS or organisation they go to. This should also be the case for further professional training and engagement leading up to and post Fellowship for Principals.
The DfE, or equivalent, should approach individual schools to encourage collaboration. There are many high-performing schools who continue to work independently of any other school.
3. Whether schools have sufficient incentives to form meaningful and lasting relationships with other schools
Only formal arrangements can be managed long term; others depend on the vagaries of those who have agreed to be in a collaboration or loose alliance. Otherwise a clearly articulated memorandum of understanding needs to be in place with regular reviews.
4. If and how the potential tension between school partnership and cooperation, and school choice and competition can be resolved
Have schools be part of a Trust that are far away from each other not to be in direct competition for numbers. There are too many schools in geographical proximity designated as Teaching Schools. Pupils in areas with no Teaching School should not be disadvantaged; you could match a high-performing school with schools outside their geographic area.
5. Whether converter academies’ requirements to support other schools, included in their funding agreements, are sufficient and are effectively policed
If the right systems are in place then they should be properly policed. There needs to be a health check on the systems as Trusts form. Cannot say about looser arrangements.
6. Whether academies sponsored by another school receive sufficient support from their sponsor
The DfE needs to broker this better and then agree a bespoke financial package with the sponsor. Some need leads but others may need a bigger starter package.
7. Whether school partnerships drive effective school improvement
Yes, where they have a strong leader, committed partners and a clear vision decided collaboratively matched to the needs of pupils in that area. Robust QA must be in place with strong action planning, self-evaluation and risk management. Formal arrangements long term are preferable as inconsistencies will occur and will make the system less effective or even fail where there was success.
8. Whether there are any additional upsides or downsides for highly performing schools supporting others through partnerships
Positive: retention of high performing staff who rare offered additional responsibilities and challenges through supporting other schools; career enhancement to broaden experience beyond their own high-performing school-important in the progression to SLT/Leadership.
Positive: requires careful management (succession planning) to ensure best staff are not taken away from the classroom.
DfE to have a national plan: how many sponsors and what size, and how they are to be dispersed. We need proper brokerage based on local intelligence. It is too hit and miss at the moment and much time, money and energy is wasted by schools which can put them off sponsoring schools. Other partnerships can be too ephemeral.
October 2013