HC 269 Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Southend Education Trust (SET)
SET is a partnership of schools that has its roots in an Education Action Zone formed in 1999.
From 2008 to 2013 the partnership included all the schools in Southend (54) and is a limited company with charitable status. The partnership has been a great success generating millions of pounds that was used to provide additional and enhanced educational opportunities for the benefit of Southend Young People. There is significant evidence that the Trust has resulted in positive impacts in a wide range of areas. We work towards a common purpose and encourage staff, children, young people and families to see themselves as members of an exciting learning community where school leaders are as concerned about the improvement of others as they are about their own.
In 2012 Westcliff High School for Girls, a highly selective grammar school, was awarded Teaching School Status and this has resulted in the demise of SET as a mature teaching school alliance without all the advantages of government patronage. As a result the partnership is in the process of transforming itself into a smaller deeper partnership of 15 primary schools with a tighter focus on school improvement and less emphasis on system leadership.
The differing forms of school partnership and cooperation, and whether they have particular advantages and disadvantages
As the questions recognises, there are many different forms of school partnership, and this reflects the relative freedom that individual schools have to decide what is appropriate for them. It should also be recognised that an individual school decision to continue a close working relationship with a Local Authority is also a form of partnership that is now the result of a choice made against other options.
It is early days for many school partnerships, particularly teaching school alliances which is the closest to a Government sponsored system with some (fairly limited) funding available for partnership costs and opportunities for accessing Government research funding and schemes such as Schools Direct for initial teacher training.
NASP’s own experience, and this also a key point regarding the depth of partnerships as set out clearly by David Hargreaves for (A self-improving school system: towards maturity NCSL 2012), is that size and commitment matter as much as the nature of the partnership structure. Generally, particularly at the initial stage, smaller partnerships have a greater chance of success as there will in most cases be a good reason for two or more school to be collaborating (similar demographics and/or a shared location). These smaller partnership offer the opportunity for all schools taking part to be fully active in terms of cooperation (reciprocal), rather than one stronger school (for example an outstanding school which leads a teaching school alliance) dominating through a “done-to” system. There is however limited evidence at this stage of how different partnerships perform in terms of pupil attainment. At this stage it is as much about adopting a principle that strong school collaborations must be at the heart of a well functioning self-improving system, and that this will in turn lead to higher levels of pupils attainment.
Not all school partnerships are the same of course, and the smaller is better principle may not extend to academy chains where there is limited evidence that larger chains, with an established executive leadership (over and above headteachers), had managed to outperform smaller academy chains and individual schools (NCSL The Growth of Academy Chains: Implications for Leaders and Leadership 2012). However, academy chains are not necessarily based upon a reciprocal partnership with schools in a chain becoming integrated into an established ethos and shared principles and it will be interesting to see whether this trend can be maintained.
How highly performing schools could be better encouraged to cooperate with others
There are a number of ways that this can be encouraged and NASP recognises that it is important for highly performing schools to be engaged in well functioning school partnerships. Not simply so that other schools can gain from their experience, but also so that the highly performing schools can continue to improve through learning from others and challenging their staff (mentoring staff at other schools for example and learning from this experience).
Highly performing schools can apply to establish a teaching school alliance with the incentives this provides for highly performing schools to lead a collaborative and self-improving system. NASP’s experience of this to date suggests that there are many incentives for other schools in an area where a new alliance is established to join. Incentives include access to Initial Teacher Training Schemes opportunities for research funding, and access to SLE and NLE functions. However the rapid expansion can lead to alliances of over 50 schools before there is any collective sense of strategic direction and purpose. This can then lead to an understandable focus on organisation, governance and other forms of bureaucracy rather than on school to school collaboration, and this stage can go on for some time. By the time the bureaucracy is resolved might it be the case that the schools in the alliance are not natural partners in a reciprocal partnership, and that an alternative bureaucracy to a Local Authority has in fact been established?
Outside of alliances and other forms of school partnership, there is a need for highly performing schools to understand what they potentially have to gain from supporting/collaborating with other schools. NASP recognises that all schools, including those who are highly performing, must be able to justify decisions (to Governing bodies for example) on the basis of good research and evidence. As Hargreaves states, leaders involved with school partners need a “theory of the case”:
“Headteachers have always had a narrative about what they do with their schools. They need it as a sales pitch to attract parental choice, as a means of accountability, and as a way of celebrating the school’s achievements. Hitherto such a narrative has been largely confined to the story of the individual school, not schools in partnership. A self-improving system based on inter-school partnership requires an extended narrative to explain and justify the partnership.” (David Hargreaves A self-improving school system: towards maturity NCSL 2012).
The “theory of the case” mentioned will emerge as more partnerships of many kinds form and mature. Support of the kind that NASP provides will ensure that more school and system leaders get the right information and support they need to make successful starts with their partnership, or to develop and scale-up appropriately. This also requires that school leaders continue to develop their skills in forming and sustaining partnerships, something that the Government should encourage and provide support for (NASP might be an appropriate vehicle to provide/promote such support).
Whether schools have sufficient incentives to form meaningful and lasting relationships with other schools
There are real incentives for schools to form partnerships at the present time. However, many of these are top-down levers of power or persuasion and do not necessarily reflect a natural tendency in schools throughout the UK to form alliances. Some of the drivers for this are:
Teaching School Alliances—Being in an alliance, a school can access ITT schemes, Schools Direct, SLEs, research funding available to alliances but not individual schools as well as a potentially mutually supportive network of schools in a local area (although not necessarily).
Squeeze on budgets—Schools inevitably have to consider new ways of making resources go further, and school partnerships offer opportunities here. Federations for example where two or more schools come together can happen for many reasons, but reducing overheads is often a key driver.
Academy chains—There is a greater sense of compulsion (top down from Government) at the present time where schools see that they may be forced into an academy chain if it is considered that joining an established alliance may help to improve attainment. Small groups of schools in a local area can also decide to form their own academy chain and this may result in a good level of real partnership working to address common issues.
NASP recognises that a school system based entirely upon individual school choice without strategic direction and some level of interference from Government is unrealistic (and probably undesirable). However, if schools are going to benefit long-term from real partnerships that begin to transform the system, then a large degree of autonomy is always going to be important. Otherwise there is a risk of one system (Government/Local Authority controlling) being replaced by a similar one (Academy Chains/Teaching School Alliances controlling) and a real school partnership driven system, with all of the benefits this can bring, may not become a reality.
Accountability is also another key issue that has to be considered from above (by Government/Ofsted). In encouraging the formation of school partnerships, the issue of making schools more accountable to each other could be tackled. Should highly-performing schools become more accountable for other schools in their area? There are formal mechanisms for this to happen such as National Leaders of Education (NLEs), Teaching School Alliances and Academy Chains, but as discussed above, these systems are not necessarily truly partnership driven (although of course they can be). With the current system of teaching school alliances, there is generally one “teaching school” at the centre with other partners schools making up the alliance. These other partner schools may be as highly-achieving as the central teaching school but they do not necessarily have the same accountability to other schools as the teaching school does.
Ofsted could have a stronger role to play in providing incentives for the development of school partnerships. The work of Christine Gilbert Towards a Self-Improving System: The role of school accountability (NCLS 2012) is relevant to the issue of incentives. She states that Ofsted could make reference in their reports “to the role played by school-to-school support in the school’s progress and indeed, to the schools support for system development.”
Ultimately the success of a self-improving and partnership driven school system will be based upon the success of the partnerships that schools are able to form with other schools. For this to happen there does need to be some support mechanisms in place such as offered by NASP, and other strategic or “middle-tier” organisations such as Local Authorities also need to make the case and provide advice and support. Helping school leaders to fully understand the benefits of forming meaningful partnerships is probably the best incentive there is.
If and how the potential tension between school partnership and cooperation, and school choice and competition can be resolved
This particular question cuts to the very heart of the issue that many school leaders face when considering cooperation with other schools in their area (competition between schools can be more relevant when the schools are located in the same area). The school system is becoming far more of a marketplace where schools should be able to choose the support and partnerships that is right for them. A school leader may choose to develop closer ties or partnerships with other schools in the area because ultimately this will bring benefits to their school. All schools are judged on their performance against Ofsted criteria that does not take full account of the tendency or otherwise of a school’s collaboration with others.
This point however could be overcome by supporting schools to recognise the many benefits that can be gained from entering into meaningful partnerships, and how this can ultimately impact positively on their performance as an individual school and their Ofsted rating. School partnerships are not by default good things. They are only good if they produce results for the schools involved, so how can we support schools to recognise the benefits and make the right choices? NASP believes that it provides an important part of the answer, but everyone from Government to Local Authorities and governors need to recognise and promote the benefits.
This is easier to address however when it comes to underperforming schools as they should be able to see the benefits of working with highly-performing schools. This is why there needs to be a continued effort to encourage highly-performing schools to recognise what they may gain from working with other schools in partnerships. Part of the lure at the moment, whether it be through teaching school alliances or another process, appears to be more focused on kudos for the highly-performing school and its head. We recognise that this is an important factor in encouraging successful school leaders to initiate and develop partnerships, but their enthusiasm is likely to be maintained longer-term if they are able to understand the benefits to their own school. This might be through the development of staff through becoming SLEs for example.
For a useful insight into the issues facing policy makers and schools leaders relating to teaching school alliances, the 10 challenges set out in Teaching Schools: First among equals? (Matthews and Berwick for NCSL 2013) offer useful reference points that reflect the need for a continued effort to ensure that teaching schools deliver benefits in the longer-term for all schools involved. For example Challenge 2 “How to maximise the methods, contributions and findings of evaluation and research so as to inform and guide practice.” To go back to our original point about the marketplace for schools, it is likely this will work more effectively for all and achieve better results if there is a support mechanism, such as proposed through NASP, that helps to guide (rather than force). In a true self-improving partnership driven system, this can be lead by schools leaders themselves if there are mechanisms (local or national) to support them.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly of all, the capacity of school leaders operating within the current school system to lead successful (or indeed unsuccessful) partnerships is key. NASP exists to offer resources and contacts to school leaders who have many (sometimes competing) demands on their time. Why do some school leaders of highly-performing schools initiate partnerships and teaching school alliances when others in a similar situation do not? An appreciation of the potential benefits to their schools as discussed above may be part of the answer. Capacity to take on more accountability may be something that some school leaders and their governing bodies do not think is a priority as their schools is already doing very well against the “competition” as referenced in the question above.
Whether converter academies’ requirements to support other schools, including in their funding agreements, are sufficiently and effectively policed
Stand alone converter academies tend to be confident, independent, competitive schools with little or no interest in the wider system. Their commitment to form and develop real collaboration is often negligible. At best they show a willingness to help a weaker school.
Whether academies sponsored by another school receive sufficient support from their sponsor
Some academies sponsored by a school do get support but as with the previous answer this depends on the motivation of the sponsor and the collaborative capital and trust that exists between the institutions.
Whether school partnerships drive effective school improvement
The principle being driven by Government is that school improvement is more likely to be achieved through school partnerships and collaboration than by top-down national strategies overseen by Government and Local Authorities. Whether this comes from evidence (and there is good evidence from abroad) or from a political commitment to marketisation of public services (or both), school partnerships need to deliver results.
NASP’s view is that school partnerships can achieve benefits for all schools involved. However, given the rate of transition from Local Authorities to a more open and decentralised system, school and system leaders need effective support mechanisms and access to information, resources and people in similar situations to themselves who can offer mentoring and guidance. NASP aims to offer this and we would like to work with Government and other national organisations to see this happen more effectively.
It would help everyone understand the impact of school partnerships if Ofsted had a clear focus on them as referenced above through Christine Gilbert. The long-term evidence of the success of a partnership driven self-improving system is lacking at present, so there does need to be a concerted effort by all involved, including Government, to monitor progress, disseminate good practice and encourage mentoring and greater accountability between schools. It would also help if there was good scrutiny of the many emerging teaching school alliances, not just focusing on results (through analysing floor targets) but how improved results (or otherwise) have been achieved and whether this was through reciprocal partnership working between schools or through a more traditional “done-to” approach.
Whether there are any additional upsides or downsides for highly performing schools supporting others through partnerships
The motivation and level of understanding of the leaders of the high achieving schools make the difference. I have observed several examples where the high performing leader appears to have been motivated by a desire to join an “elite club” of national leaders or teaching school leaders for the status it offers them and where this is the case the negative impacts can be significant. Their sudden arrival in a local area can be very disruptive and damaging to existing positive collaborative arrangements.
October 2013