School Turnaround through Collaboration - A Mixed Methods Study of Schoolto-School Partnerships in the UK
Objectives or purposes
School turnaround has become an important feature of government policy in many
education systems and significant resources have been invested to improve schools
serving the most deprived communities. Some of these efforts have involved
developing collaborative approaches to improvement in order to transfer structures
and practice across organizational boundaries. This has led to the emergence of new
organisational forms of schooling. However, to date there is very little evidence to
link collaboration to school improvement. This study aims to examine the link
between collaboration and student outcomes, providing a mixed methods analysis to
ascertain the impact of collaboration on student achievement.
Theoretical framework
Theoretically there are a number of reasons why one may hypothesize that
collaboration between schools may have a positive impact on school improvement. A
Social Capital perspective would posit that benefits accrue for organizations within a
collaborative through the exchange of information and the plugging of 'structural
gaps' in the knowledge and skills base of an organization through accessing those of
another organization. From a constructivist organizational theory perspective
collaboration can help combat the inward-focusedness that may result from the
organization's role as a sense-making entity. From a Durkheimain perspective
collaboration can help overcome the anomie that can result from working in a highly
pressurized environment with limited support, and the pressure to implement
accountability strategies that may conflict with the values of actors within the school
(Muijs et al, 2006). There is therefore significant theoretical support for the notion
that collaboration can be an effective form of school improvement.
Notwithstanding the theoretical underpinnings, evidence of the impact of
collaboration on school effectiveness and improvement remains limited, though
increasingly studies are showing possible positive impacts. Chapman, Muijs &
1
McAlister (2012), for example, showed a positive relationship between being part of a
Federation of secondary schools and pupil outcomes, particularly where a highly
effective school supports a less effective school. Recently, a local authority in a large
urban area in the UK has attempted to use this model for school turnaround in the
primary sector, by getting highly effective schools to partner with schools that were
failing or in danger of failure.
Method, techniques, mode of enquiries
This study adopted a mixed methods design. The quantitative analysis involved multilevel modeling while the qualitative phase involved case studies of 12 School-toSchool partnerships (S2S) .
In order to look at the impact of S2S on performance, we opted for a quasiexperimental design where each intervention school was matched to a school as
similar as possible on key characteristics prior to partnership. National datasets were
used to match schools on a number of criteria, including phase, type of school, gender
intake, performance levels, pupil intake characteristics, location and school size.
Clearly, no schools could be matched identically on these criteria. However, as close a
match as possible was sought in all cases using propensity score matching methods.
No statistically significant differences were found between S2S and control schools
on any of these variables following matching. The final sample contained a total of 60
schools.
Two-level Multilevel statistical models, with pupils nested in schools, were used to
look at the impact of S2S on performance.
The qualitative strand of inquiry was designed to gain deeper understandings of the
structures and processes in operation. The research in this phase of this study involved
a series of case studies. Interviews were conducted with senior leaders in 12 of the
partnerships involved, both supporting and supported schools. A total of 28 group and
individual interviews were undertaken with head teachers, deputy heads and
governors.
2
Interviewees were selected purposively so respondents chosen had sufficient
experience and insight to discuss the key issues for explorationTo ensure coverage of
the key issues the interviews were guided by a semi-structured schedule and audio
recorded. The interviews were then analysed to identify key themes, patterns and
trends in the data (Miles and Huberman, 1994).
Results
1. Impact on student outcomes
The quantitative part of the study suggests a positive relationship between being a part
of the partnership and outcomes.
Overall, between 15% and 27% of the variance in student outcomes was explained at
the school level, with the remainder at the pupil level.
Results show that pupils in intervention schools had significantly higher levels of
performance than their peers in comparison schools in 2011, and for Math in 2010,
while this was not the case in the three years leading up to the intervention; and that
intervention group membership explains up to a quarter of school level variance in
pupil outcomes, a practically significant amount that indicates that S2S supported
schools outperformed the matched comparison sample of schools.
2. What activities work in S2S Partnerships?
Overall, as evidenced in the quantitative part of the evaluation, there is evidence of
success. According to the case study data, the activities that underlie this success can
be grouped into three main types: leadership development, development of teaching
and learning approaches and generating quick wins.
3. What makes partnerships work?
3
A range of factors contribute to the success of networks and partnerships, according to
interviewees:
-
A strong focus on a limited number of goals
-
A whole-school approach, involving most staff in the school
-
Openness from the supported school to the intervention
-
Mutual benefits, with supporting schools seeing the support as a
professional development opportunity
-
Capacity in the supporting school, in terms of both leadership and
pedagogical skills such as coaching
-
A phased approach, with intensive support initially becoming increasingly
hands-off
-
Trust and personal relationships
4. Issues in collaborative school turnaround.
Obviously, in some cases collaboration of this nature also has disadvantages, these
will be further discussed in the full paper.
Scholarly significance of the study
This is one of very few studies which has combined a rigorous matched samples
quantitative design to look at the impact of (a specific type of) collaborative
arrangement between schools with extensive qualitative analyses, and therefore makes
a significant contribution to our knowledge base in this area.
References
Chapman, C Muijs, D, Collins, A and Sammons, P (2009) The impact of Federations
on Student outcomes, Nottingham: NCSL
CUREE (2005) Systematic Research Review: The impact of networks on pupils,
practitioners, organisations and the committees they serve. Nottingham: NCSL
4
Fullan, M. (2004). Leadership and Sustainability: System Thinkers in Action. London:
Corwin Press.
Hadfield, M. and Chapman, C. (2009). Leading School-Based Networks. London:
Routledge.
Lindsay, G Muijs, D Harris, A Chapman, C Arweck, E and Goodall, J (2007) Final
report of the evaluation of the federations policy. London: DCSF
Miles, M and Huberman, M B (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded source
book. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Muijs, D., West, M. & Ainscow, M. (2006). Networking and Collaboration Between
Schools. Theoretical Perspectives. Nottingham: National college for School
Leadership.
5