HC 269 Education CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by London Leadership Strategy

1. Who are we?

London Leadership Strategy is a not for profit company taking forward the legacy of London Challenge. Run by Heads we have a network of school improvement reaching across all London Boroughs as well as offering support in specific projects and partnerships across England.

We have a lead school in each London Borough; a network of National Leaders of Education (NLE), Local Leaders of Education (LLEs), Specialist Leaders of Education (SLEs) and outstanding heads and teachers and teaching school partnerships. Over 400 London schools access our services each year.

www.londonleadership.com

We have programmes at primary, secondary and within SEN and our network includes all school sectors—maintained and non-maintained, members of multi academy trusts (MATs), independent schools, free schools and NMSS.

Our programmes support schools at every point of their development journey—from needing improvement through to maintaining outstanding provision and supports leadership from entry to the profession through to outstanding heads supporting each other.

Our programmes are structured around what we know works in school improvement and the key to our success is our belief that the knowledge for school improvement is both within schools and can be shared between schools. We focus on developing the system leadership and believe in improved outcomes through collaboration. Our outcomes are based on careful brokering of relationships—matching the right schools together in programmes that are carefully focused around hard outcomes for pupils.

Example 1 London Leadership Strategy—“Securing Good” Programme

“Securing Good” is targeted at schools which were judged as Grade 3 (satisfactory/requiring improvement) in their last/previous Ofsted inspection and are working to improve their schools to secure Good at the next inspection. The participant schools were initially London secondary schools but we have a cluster of Devon schools involved and also a Manchester hub.

The programme is organised around a series of half-termly conferences focussing on a key theme: eg improving quality of teaching, raising achievement, strengthening leadership and management. These include presentations from inspectors, specialists and practitioners, usually outstanding Head teachers and senior leaders from outstanding schools. Each school on the programme is also paired up with a highly successful Head teacher with a proven track record who works with them in a consultancy capacity. Usually, these colleagues are NCSL National Leaders in Education and Local Leaders in Education.

Schools that we are supporting have enjoyed impressive levels of success. There are 18 schools in the group. Nine have been inspected so far in this academic year with six securing a good judgement and one achieving outstanding.

2. Summary of Points

There is much evidence to suggest that school collaborations and partnerships work.

Evaluation of the National Literacy/Numeracy Strategies , Primary Learning Networks, NCSL Networked Learning Communities, Beacon schools and the work of the former Specialist Schools and Academies Trust all point to the success of well-structured approaches to school to school partnerships and school improvement

OFSTED’s review of London Challenge http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/london-challenge is clear in how the approach adopted by London Leadership drives up school standards across collaborating schools.1

Most schools will adopt more than one approach to collaboration and certainly LLS encourages this as do well-rounded MATs.

Example 2 Outline the many partnerships of one example school
Southfields Academy

Academy
Teaching School
Local cluster
London Leadership Strategy
Challenge Partners
Pan London School Games

School partnerships are built around a knowledge management model and to be successful depend upon organisational and social capital. To be effective they are based on trust and highly dependent on a coaching and active learning model of delivery.

Strong project management is a vital ingredient—in short somebody has to manage the relationships. Careful selection and matching of partners with clear terms of engagement and accountability must be established at the beginning of any partnership arrangement.

Example 3 Deployment of NLEs

London Leadership has a small secretariat and a network of very experienced heads as both Company Directors and part of the strategic management team taking on brokering provision. This has included NLE deployment with experienced Heads brokering partnerships with schools requiring support. In 2011, the LLS received National College funding to provide support to 19 primary schools with a history of low attainment. The London Leadership Strategy delivered a structured programme of support through the NLE deployment model. Twelve experienced headteachers (NLEs and LLEs) in the LLS network were engaged to deliver this one-on-one support. Participating schools attribute significant success to this work.2

LLS brokers school to school partnerships and matching is carefully considered. NLE/LLE/SLEs all have to be trained in coaching as part of the Q/A process. Colleagues providing the support also receive challenge and support form a senior HT who has oversight of the work.

Much of the support is not reliant upon a single strategy but focused on be-spoke solutions. This work if it is to be effective is not easy and involves complex processes and a mix of facilitating conditions. It also depends on understanding different contexts and should be focused and outcome oriented. In short it is not about the best leading the rest it is about co-construction. In London Leadership we have quite clear targets and goals and the impact of partnership work is evaluated in terms of concrete outcomes relating to the achievement of pupils.

To do this work schools must demonstrate that they have the capacity to deliver, are credible to their peers and are skilful in strategic planning and contracting.

The most obvious form of encouragement, setting aside moral purpose is the belief that by being involved in partnerships that focus on joint practice development we will also continue to improve. This will results in a double lift in performance. Governing Bodies do accept that the opportunities provided for staff to work with other schools can contribute to their own professional development. However if a school is heavily involved in a range of these partnerships the project management has to be accounted for. At a time of reducing budgets it is sometimes difficult for schools to purchase school improvement support but some form of resource is required for the provider school.

We have been involved in independent state school partnerships and these have great potential. In our experience the issue here has been the openness of the state schools and willingness to release teachers. In the independent sector they are mindful of the fees paid by parents.

The convertor academies’ requirement to support other schools is certainly not policed and Teaching School Alliances are of variable quality.

School partnerships can drive up performance if there is some leadership capacity in the receiving school but it can be difficult if there is no governance control in schools operating at the sharp edge.

There is absolutely no question that school to school support energises staff and aids with staff retention and recruitment. The work is focused on what teachers care about—teaching and learning, leadership etc. Practitioners who support each other whilst facing the same demands and pressures, to differing degrees can be quite powerful. If there is a payment between schools it keeps the money within the system however school budgets cannot sufficiently cover costs of a brokered and well evaluated school to school improvement approach.

One of the down sides is the very high stakes accountability system but this can also be a reason for supporting each other to cope with the demands of Ofsted and a more rigorous examination system.

Proposed principles of good school collaboration and partnership

must follow existing evidence of what works in school improvement—while more research is needed on what supports knowledge transfer we do know that approaches based around effective coaching; long term support and with a focus on outcomes for children have best impact;

approach must be carefully matched to where schools are in their improvement cycle;

must be of benefit for all partners eg outstanding staff benefit from working with others as in articulating what they do that is effective they develop their own understanding and practice;

capacity must be built into systems for heads/others to do the work—for all schools in partnership;

must be internally valued (teaching staff, wider staff, governors, parents etc);

must be externally valued (OFSTED, DfE, local authority, MAT etc);

there must be development for those providing support eg coaching, etc—NLE is the entry level not end level for those leading school to school improvement; and

deep sustained impact of schools takes time—pressure for quick wins in school improvement is a risk.

3. Considering the Select Committee Questions in Detail

3.1 The differing forms of school partnership and cooperation, and whether they have particular advantages and disadvantages

Work by NCSL details well the different approaches to school collaboration and the advantages and disadvantages of same.ⁱ 3

LLS focus is on school improvement through a structured programme of school to school support between schools who choose to be part of the collective. Many of the secondary schools are academies (some in multi academy trusts) and nearly all participants are part of local federations. This paper therefore, in the main, considers the committee’s questions through the lense of this particular model of school collaboration.

Advantages of LLS model (as reported by members):

Head teacher and senior leader mentoring.

Sharing best practice—teaching and learning, leadership, safe guarding, etc.

Sharing resources.

Sharing training—resources, expertise, facilities.

Consortium—sharing the curriculum—enabling a curricula provision that on their own, schools would not be able to provide or deliver.

Quality controls.

Short term—immediate issue/problem solving partnerships—one to one coaching relationships when well brokered are highly effective.

The various London Leadership programmes are highly effective because they bring Heads together who have a common cause—getting good, staying good, getting outstanding and staying outstanding.

Challenges are:

Incentives for and risks to outstanding schools.

Building capacity within school for improvement.

Example 4 View from a LLS Head on advantages of LLS approach

The advantages are: an organisational framework then ensures synergy between partners and a coherent set of aims and practices linked to system wide improvement rather than small scale interventions/support.

Disadvantages: ensuring all partners participate and support in an equitable way/a way commensurate with their areas of strength.

Example 5 advantages of head run systems—some good practice

Harrow’s heads group is a highly effective Local Headteacher Groups—working very closely to share resources, agree different resourcing strategies and tackle issues and problems. Like many of these partnerships they are very good at taking risks and have a large no of system leaders in their membership. They have sponsored an Academy for BESD and they made the conversion to academy status as a group.

The Brent Partnership which spans secondary, special and primary. Quite young but this group has a number of system leaders and has begun the process of joint purchasing, provision of CPD and developing systems to support schools in challenging circumstances.

The Leadership Development Grant produced a very innovative and impactful partnership between 10 secondary schools in Brent—the focus was on building leadership capacity and stamina in Heads and it was hosted by a lead school—with the money to support the programme—and facilitated by experts from the Tavistock. Success was because of the money available through the leadership grant and the willingness of the Heads to take the risk of working together even though they were in competition with one another for pupil numbers).

3.2 How highly performing schools could better be encouraged to cooperate with others; and
Whether there are any additional upsides or downsides for highly performing schools supporting others through partnerships

There needs to be a focus both on incentives for schools as a whole and for individual leaders.

Many school leaders focus on supporting and working with others schools because of what they see as a moral imperative to improve outcomes for all children.

School leaders share concerns over knowledge being lost from the system and new heads—particularly of free schools—coming in with limited knowledge and experience. Heads want to share their knowledge and can see risks in a system that is about lose a tranche of experienced senior leaders at a time of massive system change. A recent roundtable at NCB on safeguarding, for example, shared concerns that the churn in the system was leading to a leeching out of knowledge on safeguarding from the system leadership.

With effective brokering there are benefits to all partners in collaborative school improvement.

However there are significant risks:

teacher burnout and stress—many take it on as additional with limited backfill in schools;

own school falls backwards; and

outstanding schools needs to focus on their own development.

Example 6 Supporting outstanding schools

The G4G programme was set up in 2009 with the following aims:

To encapsulate key features and qualities of schools which are consistently outstanding, in order to better understand how outstanding schools become great schools.

To support schools rated as outstanding by OFSTED in maintaining this designation in subsequent inspection.

To support succession planning both in outstanding schools and those they are working with.

To support outstanding schools in maximising their impact on the local, national and/or international community, through effective systemic leadership.

To ensure that outstanding schools are helping to make education in London world class.

Each year, the leaders of 24 outstanding secondary schools across the capital (a different cohort every 12 months) come together for half termly seminars, visit each other’s schools and commit to producing a case study of excellent practice in their institution for publication.4

3.3 Whether schools have sufficient incentives to form meaningful and lasting relationships with other schools

Teachers enter into education to make a difference—to improve outcomes for children. This sense of moral purpose is real and enduring and is too often underestimated in debate on how competition will impact on education. Teachers want the best outcomes for the children in their care but there is no evidence that they are prepared to pursue this at the expense of children in other settings—indeed the teaching profession is bursting with examples of teachers wanting to share their knowledge and skills with no return. This week’s TES for example shows how across the globe teachers are sharing teach created content, for free at a rate of 700,000 downloads a day.

LLS consultant heads, like many others, give much time pro bono—outwith of working hours and without pay or TOIL—to support other schools.

That is not to say that “incentives” are not necessary but rather suggests that they should be focused about the practical issues of releasing school staff and committing school time.

Incentives currently include:

small (6K) payment for NLEs/support schools;

teaching school funding;

funding received when converting to academy status;

opportunities to “sell in” services to others schools; and

some opportunities for staff development and career progression.

Incentives should include:

tendered opportunities for school to school improvement programmes that include NLE deployment, brokering services etc. that will fund both small secretariat co-ordination piece and evaluation and brokering approaches as well as development. Leave school budgets to pay for direct delivery costs;

building on the NLE programme with clear training routes and accreditation for those providing school to school improvement making this a clear career path;

system leadership and support for other schools being part of the inspection framework for outstanding schools; and

teachers leading further funded research on how we make leadership learning and school improvement as effective as possible.

The notion (reflected within NLE/SLE/teaching school thinking) that eventually school improvement systems can be self-sustaining from within school budgets is naïve. Modelling by LLS shows that covering the true costs of school to school improvement work (including development of new approaches, evaluation of impact as well as covering all costs attached to administration and brokering) would price this work beyond what schools could afford to pay. This appears to be reflected in other programmes (the NAHT Aspire programme for example—comparable to LLS’ Securing Good model) requires a subsidy of £5,000 for each school involved in the programme.

There is much focus on how MATs are developing their school to school work. Many academy chains encourage their schools to engage in LLS programmes recognising that accessing learning from outwith of the chain is the key to continuous improvement and to avoid “groupthink”.

As MATs are forming they need to show not just how their school to school systems work within chain but also how they reach out beyond chain to learn with others. Academies should be required to provide a review of their partnership and collaborative activities—as outlined in their academy plans—in their annual reports.

3.4 If and how the potential tension between school partnership and cooperation, and school choice and competition can be resolved

Here moral purpose should not be discounted—heads and schools want to do this. Teachers enter the profession to improve outcomes for all children—not just those in their direct care.

But schools are moving towards a marketplace structure and this tension cannot be ignored.

Bodies like LLS can help to avoid any potential competitive clashes eg by partnering schools with limited geographic competition across boroughs or even outside of London but also reaching into MATs to partner their schools with others outside of the chain.

More strategically David Hargreaves offers a way of working towards a resolution of this tension in his description of the Silicone Valley model of cooperation between highly successful businesses compared to the Boston Route 128 competition model (Towards A Self Improving School System5). HP—one of the most competitive organisations in the IT world—gave away much of its knowledge. It recognised that competitors would do this back—creating social capital, trust and reciprocity, and that everyone would win through developing off the back of this shared knowledge.

Many schools recognise that co-operation improves the outcomes of the school above that of the competitors. So partners become co-competitors—incentivising competition where there is clear improvement in outcomes and therefore a stronger position in market for the collaborating group of schools.

This can usefully be compared to the consultant model in hospitals. Consultant posts are highly sought after and their funding streams are highly competitive. But when new developments are made colleagues from other areas are called in to learn from them. There is high social capital—trust; shared goals; sense of greater than self; reciprocity leads to sharing of intellectual capital and a virtual circle is created.

Within education we need to remember many heads are driven by moral purpose. The system needs to build on and support this—both within accountability frameworks formally and through the tone set from the leadership of the education system.

4. Conclusion

There is much evidence that school to school improvement works and more widely that a collaborative model improves outcomes.

The system is “messy”. There are multiple models of school improvement and partnership and schools will adopt those that work for their circumstance. Incentives are few and in general poorly policed and the suggestion that school to school improvement will ultimately be funded through school budgets is at best naïve and at worse disingenuous.

Ultimately the question of what the model of heads and teachers leading the system has to confront is the question of how to upscale the good work of individual partnerships into networks of school improvement embracing not just a few schools but 24,000 schools. The scale of this challenge goes beyond the good work and commitment of individual schools and needs to be part of an appropriate large scale organisation that can integrate the work of partner schools and provide a coherent model of system wide school improvement—London Leadership presents one such proven model.

Reference

ⁱ ???

October 2013