Working Together to Improve Schools
An evaluation of the Transforming Secondary Education initiative in
Nottingham
Andy Howes and Mel Ainscow
January 2005
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT
Confidentiality and anonymity
Anonymity is difficult to guarantee in a report about an educational initiative in a
single city. We have anonymised school names (ie C1, c2, c3) and taken additional
steps where that coding does not sufficiently protect either individuals or institutions.
Given that the aim of this report is not to evaluate the performance of individuals
(either people or schools) but to learn lessons about collaboration between the schools
in a local authority, we have no interest in presenting individuals or institutions in
ways to which they would take exception. We would be grateful for feedback on any
sections of the report that readers feel require further care in relation to
confidentiality.
2
Executive Summary
This report presents the findings of an evaluation of the Transforming Secondary
Education (TSE) initiative in the City of Nottingham. Set up in 2002 following a
period of concern about levels of student achievement in the city’s secondary schools,
the project involved the development of partnership arrangements within four groups
of secondary schools (known as the ‘quadrants’). Additional funding was provided to
support the process by the DfES. There was also involvement of a private partner and
another local education authority
Evidence
The evaluation was carried out by a small team of researchers from the University of
Manchester over a period of almost two years. The evidence for the study was
collected through interviews, statistical measures, observations, document analysis
and attendance at relevant meetings. In addition, surveys of staff attitudes towards the
initiative were carried out. Process and outcome data were analysed and compared in
order to determine conclusions as to the effectiveness of the initiative. As far as
possible, findings were validated with stakeholder groups prior to the publication of
this report.
The findings
The study shows that school-to-school collaboration has an enormous potential for
fostering system–wide improvement, particularly in urban contexts. Over a relatively
short period, secondary schools in Nottingham demonstrated how such arrangements
can provide an effective means of solving immediate problems, such as staff
shortages; how they can have a positive impact during periods of crisis, such as during
the closure of a school; and, how, in the longer run, schools working together can
contribute to the raising of aspirations and attainment in schools that have had a
record of low achievement. The data show that attainment levels increased between
2002 and 2004 in all four quadrants, and KS3 results suggest that they will continue to
do so over the next few years. There was also strong evidence that collaboration
helped reduce the polarization of the education system, to the particular benefit of
those pupils who are on the edges of the system and performing relatively poorly,
although impact was uneven.
The involvement of staff from another LEA was a positive feature during the early
stages of the initiative, not least in raising aspirations as to what might be possible in
urban schools. The private partner played an important role in working with
headteachers and LEA staff in order to develop and implement the overall strategic
plan.
TSE was broadly welcomed by schools and most of the key stakeholders had some
say in its detailed design. At the same time, a small minority of significant players
remained convinced that they had been coerced into participation. On the positive
3
side, the commitment to involving all secondary schools kick-started the process of
collaboration and put pressure on stakeholders to work together. On the less positive
side, the feeling of coercion that did exist created a relatively negative reaction from a
small group of influential headteachers.
Collaboration for school improvement
The study suggests five propositions about the role of collaboration for school
improvement within the TSE project. These are as follows:
Firstly, collaboration was part of a process whereby more individual schools and more
groups of schools felt a stake in the process of school improvement. As a result, they
found themselves able to act together in various combinations to tackle complex and
deep-rooted problems in schools.
Secondly, the accounts reveal how collaborating schools contributed to a wide range
of improvements, whether in terms of resources for teaching and learning, the
provision and preparation of teachers and other staff, the development of alternative
curricula and activities, and the measures used to determine successful teaching.
However, thirdly, the evidence indicates that collaboration alone own does not
provide the models for development, and the accounts show that when groups of
schools are planning new developments, the stimulus of materials from other sources
(such as the KS3 strategy and others) is extremely important. A lot of collaborative
work went on in connection with the themes (such as questioning, and alternative KS4
opportunities) promoted through various national strategies – and, of course, this
contributed to the successful implementation of those strategies.
In addition, and fourthly, there was an ongoing issue in relation to sources of
challenge. It proved difficult for collaborating headteachers, working hard to share
resources and build relationships, to address the pressing needs either of individual
schools or within the system, without the assistance of outsiders to the group. The
accounts demonstrate how important the role of LEA staff was in this regard.
Finally, since collaboration was about the active involvement of staff from different
schools, there was a constant interaction at a level close to practice and to the context
that schools are working in every day. Staff saw and understood each others’ issues
much more clearly, and were able to contribute to resolving the tensions that
necessarily arose with the implementation of improvement plans.
Drawing out the lessons
The report argues that these findings are a significant contribution to school
improvement knowledge, particularly in relation to system-wide reform. However, the
evidence indicates that the successful use of school-to-school collaboration is far from
straight forward, particularly within the English context, where competition and
choice continue to be the driving forces of national education policy.
The Nottingham experience points to certain conditions that are necessary in order to
make school-to-school collaboration effective. These are as follows:
4

The presence of incentives that encourage key stake holders to explore the
possibility that collaboration will be in their own interests;

The development of collective responsibility for bringing about improvements
in all the partner organisations;

Headteachers and other senior staff in schools who are willing and able to
drive collaboration forward;

The creation of common improvement agendas that are seen to be relevant to a
wide range of stakeholders;

External help from credible consultants/advisers (from the LEA or elsewhere)
who have the confidence to learn alongside their school-based partners; and

An LEA willingness and desire to support and engage with the collaborative
process, exploring and developing new roles and relationships where
necessary.
It is argued that the absence of such conditions will mean that attempts to encourage
schools to work together are likely to lead to time-consuming talk, which sooner or
later will be dropped. These conclusions are in themselves important for those
national initiatives, such as the Leadership Incentive Grant and the networked
learning communities sponsored by the National College for School Leadership, that
invest resources in the idea of schools working in partnership.
Recommendations
Whilst the overall conclusions about what has occurred in Nottingham are very
positive, the report recommends that there is still much to be done if the somewhat
uneven progress that has been achieved can be turned to even greater effect. This will
require further steps to widen involvement in the strategy and to deepen the levels of
commitment across the education service, and, indeed, amongst the wider community
in the city.
The issue of shared leadership is a central factor. More specifically, there is a need
for forms of leadership that will involve many stakeholders in sharing responsibility
for improving the achievement of learners in all schools in the city. This calls for
further significant change in beliefs and attitude, and new relationships, as well as
improvements in practice.
Policy implications
The study confirms other research that shows how what goes on at the district level
has a significant role to play in respect to processes of school improvement. This
implies the negotiation of new, inter-dependent relationships between schools, LEAs
and their wider communities, of the sort that have begun to emerge in Nottingham.
Introducing such an approach in the current context, with its cocktail of competing
5
agendas and confusion about forms of governance, is, however, far from
straightforward. Consequently, levers need to be found that will be powerful in
encouraging the development of inter-dependence amongst groups of schools within
districts.
The report argues that policy-makers would be naive to overlook the influence of
what happens at the local authority level, particularly in urban districts. Local history,
inter-connections between schools and established relationships are always there,
even if they are overlooked. This being the case, it is argued that further progress
towards a national education system that is geared to raising standards for all students,
in all schools, requires the systematic orchestration and, sometimes, the redistribution
of available resources and expertise at the local level.
Consequently, it will be helpful if national policy initiatives place further emphasis on
the principle of collaboration as a fundamental strategy in efforts to raise standards
across the education system; and if the regulatory frameworks that are used to
determine effectiveness nationally also focus specific attention on this factor.
6
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Transforming Secondary Education In Nottingham
3. Making sense of collaboration
4. Sharing resources: an account of Quadrant A
5. Becoming collegial: an account of Quadrant B
6. Developing a strategic approach: an account of Quadrant C
7. Barriers to collaboration: an account of Quadrant D
8. Drawing out the lessons
9. Implications
References
Appendix A: Timeline of events
Appendix B. Conditions for School Improvement Survey
7
1. Introduction
Over the last few years, the introduction of performance targets has brought greater
pressure to increase levels of attainment amongst students in English schools,
especially at 16+, where national GCSE examination results offer a yardstick that
allows some aspects of school performance to be compared. However, despite
continuing gains in overall attainment levels, there remain a number of schools,
typically schools in difficult urban contexts, where progress has been difficult to
secure. These contexts tend to be marked by social and economic disadvantage in
major cities and post-industrial towns, where learners from economically poor
backgrounds are most concentrated.
In such contexts the issue of sustainable improvement is a particular challenge. Whilst
the literature provides accounts of schools that have brought about improvements in
their work despite facing challenging circumstances, there are fewer examples of
progress that has been maintained beyond a relatively short period of years (Maden,
2001; Harris et al., 2003; West, Ainscow &Stanford, 2005). It is also the case that
many of the examples that are described involve schools that have chosen to
participate in particular improvement initiatives (Ainscow & Chapman, 2005). By
their nature such schools tend to be exceptional and it is, therefore, dangerous to build
policies on the basis of such experiences.
It seems logical to argue, therefore, that the way forward must be to focus on systemic
development. In this report we provide an evaluation on an attempt to use processes
of networking and collaboration across an urban education system in order develop a
more sustainable strategy. This leads us to explore the opportunities and challenges
that are involved.
Specifically, we report on our evaluation of the Transforming Secondary Education
(TSE) initiative in the City of Nottingham. TSE was set up in 2002, following a
period of concern about levels of student achievement in the city’s secondary schools.
The project, which was supported by additional Government funding, involved the
development of partnership arrangements within four groups of secondary schools
(known as the ‘quadrants’). It was, therefore, an interesting and important
experiment, in line with Government policy for the reform of secondary education. It
was also consistent with recent thinking in the school improvement field.
Changing relationships
In recent years, structures and relationships within the education service in England
have been fundamentally reformed. These changes have been reflected most
significantly in the evolving relationships between schools and their LEAs. This
movement, from ‘dependency’ towards greater ‘independence’, has been consistently
orchestrated through legislation and associated Department for Education and Skills
(DfES) guidance. This shift was summarised in the Government’s 1997 consultation
document, ‘Excellence in Schools’, which stated: ‘The role of LEAs is not to control
schools, but to challenge all schools to improve and support those which need help to
raise standards’.
8
Relationships between schools have also been influenced by national policy changes
in recent years, in two main ways. On the one hand, competition between schools has
come to be seen as one of the keys to driving up standards. This was encouraged by
the introduction of grant-maintained status for schools (now known as ‘foundation
schools’) and by open enrolment, supported by the publication of league tables of
school results. Greater autonomy was intended to ‘liberate’ schools from the
bureaucracy of local government and establish what has been described as ‘school
quasi-markets’ (Thrupp, 2001), in which effective schools would have an ‘armslength’ relationship with the LEA and, indeed, with each other. At the same time,
various national initiatives, such as Excellence in Cities and the Educational Action
Zones, have built on and developed traditions of networking and sharing between
schools, focused on areas of relative social and economic disadvantage, and aimed to
improve the provision of education for children and young people in those areas.
Overall, the move away from a dependent relationship between LEAs and schools, to
ways of working that emphasise school independence has so far failed to provide the
system-wide improvement in achievement of the sort required by the community. For
example, our own earlier research has revealed how, within contexts that value
certain criteria for determining success, moves towards competition can act as a
barrier to the development of an education system that is effective in reaching out to
all learners (Ainscow, Howes & Tweddle, 2005; Ainscow et al, 2005). It can be
argued that the emphasis on school autonomy within an environment of competition
and choice has been unable to bring about significant improvements amongst all
learners in economically poorer urban contexts. At the same time it is recognised that
leadership for improvement efforts does need to come from within individual schools.
This suggests that attempts to move schools forward in a more inclusive way are
likely to be very demanding. They will, we suggest, require an engagement with
questions of principles and purposes within the education system and a greater
emphasis on the sharing of expertise and resources.
Such an approach would be consistent with what Stoker (2003) calls ‘public value
management’, with its emphasis on network governance. Stoker argues that the
origins of this approach can be traced to criticisms of the current emphasis on
strategies drawn from private sector experience. He goes on to suggest that ‘the
formulation of what constitutes public value can only be achieved through
deliberation involving the key stakeholders and actions that depend on mixing in a
reflexive manner a range of intervention options’. Consequently, ‘networks of
deliberation and delivery’ are seen as key strategies. In the education service, this
would imply the negotiation of new, inter-dependent relationships between schools,
LEAs and their wider communities.
As the challenge of improving schools on a large scale remains at the fore,
particularly in urban contexts, policy makers have invested heavily in the concept of
networks as a means of driving school improvement. This has led one influential
commentator, David Hargreaves (2003), to argue:
A network increases the pool of ideas on which any member can draw
and as one idea or practice is transferred, the inevitable process of
adaptation and adjustment to different conditions is rich in potential
for the practice to be incrementally improved by the recipient and
9
then fed back to the donor in a virtuous circle of innovation and
improvement. In other words, the networks extend and enlarge the
communities of practice with enormous potential benefits.
We are now seeing the emergence of what might be defined as a new school
improvement paradigm, one that places the emphasis on inter-dependence. Within
such an orientation attempts are made to support and challenge school-led
improvement efforts through collaboration with other schools.
The Nottingham strategy
Such arrangements require massive shifts in thinking and attitude if the potential
benefits are to be achieved. In this sense, the Nottingham strategy is particularly
interesting in that it has involved an attempt to create a whole-LEA approach. In
addition, the involvement of a private partner and another LEA offered other
resources that could be used to support successful implementation, whilst at the same
time bringing additional complexity and, perhaps, other unknown risks.
This report presents the findings of the evaluation of TSE carried out by a small team
of researchers from the University of Manchester over a period of almost two years.
The study involved both a formative and a summative dimension. In other words, the
aim was to collect data about the processes used in ways that would inform the
strengthening of the strategy as it developed, whilst, at the same time, accumulating
evidence that would help to make overall judgements as to the success of the
initiative.
The evidence for the study was collected through interviews, statistical measures,
observations, document analysis and attendance at relevant meetings. In addition we
carried out surveys of staff attitudes towards the initiative (see Appendix B). Process
and outcome data were then analysed and compared in order to determine conclusions
as to the effectiveness of the initiative. As far as possible, findings were validated
with stakeholders groups prior to the publication of this final report. It is important to
note, however, that the report presents the conclusions we have come to as evaluators,
based on our analysis of the evidence we collected.
The report is organised in a series of chapters. Following this introduction, chapter 2
tells the overall story of TSE and how it developed. In chapter 3 we relate the
initiative to wider thinking in the field about the idea of collaboration as a strategy for
school improvement and explain how we engaged with its use within the Nottingham
strategy. This is followed by four chapters that provide accounts of the developments
in each of the quadrants of schools. Then, in chapter 8 we compare and contrast the
four accounts in order to draw out the lessons of the experience. Finally, in chapter 9,
we consider the implications for the development of thinking and practice in the field.
10
2. Transforming Secondary Education In Nottingham
Praise as City Pupils Make the Grade
Schools are celebrating record GCSE results in Nottingham. The city's
19 state comprehensives registered the best 12-month increase since they
split from county control in 1998. Nottingham's schools have taken a
drubbing over the years, at the foot of league tables, way short of
Government targets and blighted by bad behaviour. But today there are
grounds for optimism as city schools celebrate their best set of results
(Nottingham Evening Post, August 22, 2003).
Results put city's schools on target
Schools standards minister David Milliband has praised improving
standards across Nottingham, which saw the number of pupils getting
five or more GCSEs rise to 38.1% and for the first time hit a
Government exam target…. The city is still celebrating its best GCSE
results. This year was the first time it had met a Government exam target
since it took control of education from Notts County Council in 1998.
But Russell Andrews, assistant director of education, said they would
not rest on their laurels and were looking for similar improvement next
year. ‘Next year we want to break the 40% barrier, it is a realistic target
for us’. (Nottingham Evening Post, August 31, 2004).
These two items from the local evening paper are evidence of a shift in media
perception in relation to secondary education in Nottingham, and serve to set the
scene for this report. When Ofsted inspected the LEA in 2002, they were generally
positive about the organisation, whilst noting a lack of capacity to raise standards in
the secondary sector. TSE originated with a proposal from the DfES to the LEA to
engage in a project to build the missing capacity through stronger collaboration
between schools.
So, at the core of the TSE project was a strategy for encouraging schools to work
together in raising standards in all schools and for all students. In this chapter we
provide an overall account of this strategy and how it was introduced (see Appendix
A for timeline summary of key events). This account was compiled on the basis of
evidence provided by those involved. It is worth noting that different versions of
what actually happened exist, particularly in relation to matters of detail.
Nevertheless, we believe that our general account is accurate.
Background
It is important to understand something of the context of the LEA and its schools prior
to the start of TSE. As we have noted, its introduction reflected concern in DfES
about levels of attainment at the secondary level in 2002. At that time there were
nineteen secondary schools in the city, with three in special measures, four in serious
weaknesses and almost half causing concern through relatively low level of GCSE
results. Some figures suggested that as many as 25% of pupils were migrating out of
the city at the transition to secondary school in 2002, and it was generally agreed that
children of parents more motivated towards education were over-represented in this
group. In addition, despite the fact that the city’s two universities each have teacher
11
education courses, there were difficulties in attracting and retaining suitably qualified
teachers to the city.
The local paper had been reporting problems for some time. For example, an article
that appeared in June 2001 commented:
Nottingham still has more schools - five - scraping along the bottom of
the league tables than any other education authority in the country. The
authority as a whole is fourth from bottom of the English school league
table. Last year, 11% of pupils who left city schools after GCSEs did not
take even a single G-grade pass with them...slightly more than the
previous year. … Between 1998 and 2000 the number of teenagers
getting five C-passes or better at GCSE went up by less than three per
cent, from 26.1% to 28.7%. The city's target for 2002 is 38% - but
schools look unlikely to achieve it. (Nottingham Evening Post)
It is impossible to be certain about exactly what relationships between LEA and
schools were like at this time. The LEA had many positive features, as reported in the
2002 LEA Ofsted inspection. Furthermore, it is difficult to see how negotiations over
the TSE project could have proceeded as well as they did, had there not been
generally good relations and trust between schools and the LEA, and a general sense
of readiness to tackle the outstanding issues in the system.
In addition, the Excellence in Cities (EiC) partnership was strong, built into the
structure of the LEA, and well-integrated into leadership and management structures
in schools. By 2001, partnership meetings involving headteachers were in place, as
were cluster based coordinators for each of the three EiC strands. Schools were
engaging in activities such as summer schools for gifted and talented year 11 pupils
(180 pupils involved in 2001), and had over fifty learning mentors in place. Staff
training sessions had been completed in English, Maths and Sciences, and teachers
interviewed in 2003 reported that in many subjects these meetings focusing on
provision for gifted and talented pupils were continuing and were still valued.
However, it seems certain that LEA resources to support and challenge schools in
raising standards were stretched. Some of those involved described a ‘culture of
dependency’ on the LEA, associated with a lack of ownership of the school
improvement agenda at the school level. They explained that whilst some
headteachers and staff were driving their schools forward, this was against a
background of widespread, relatively low expectations of city pupils. Others thought
that the LEA could have acted more strategically in relation to the issue of
admissions. Falling rolls, coupled with the increasing intake of some schools, were
generating the prospect of school closures, and planning for admissions was becoming
increasingly difficult. One long-serving headteacher commented:
‘A couple of years ago, the LEA weren’t hearing the problems – they
weren’t alert to the fact that four schools were becoming the sink schools
in the city, linked with the mobility issue. New people in the LEA and in
schools could see this more clearly, and that something could and should
be done about it’.
12
Significantly, this was also a time of major change in LEA staffing with respect to
secondary schools, with wholesale change in the staffing of the secondary advisory
team, the appointment of a KS3 strategy manager, and a new assistant director with
responsibility for school improvement. Overall, 2002 presented a particularly fertile
combination of conditions. Widespread acceptance of the need for a determined and
widespread focus on improvement across the city, the history of collaboration around
EiC, and a new LEA secondary team, combined to create a highly favourable context
for the introduction of the TSE project. The first TSE newsletter to schools spoke of
building on
…. the real successes of schools and LEA over the past 4 years. The
partnership brings additional support and, we hope, some innovative
strategies for improvement. But at the same time we want to build on the
successful relations built between schools and the LEA, real
improvements in literacy and numeracy across the city, the benefits of
programmes developed within EiC, the emerging Behaviour Support
plan and many other strong features already in place across the City
(May 2002).
The TSE strategy
The TSE project was put out to tender in an open competition which raised ten
expressions of interest, and in 2002 Mouchel was selected by DfES, taking advice
from representatives from the City Council, the Education Department and secondary
schools. A steering group was set up to manage the project, comprising the Director
of Education and key officers, representatives of headteachers, staff from Birmingham
LEA, senior advisers from the DfES, and the Project Director and key staff from the
Mouchel team. The core TSE project team consisted of just two people: a member of
the Mouchel staff, (a recently-retired headteacher) and an officer appointed to
Nottingham City LEA but working full time on the TSE project (see appendix A for
summary of key events in the TSE initiative).
The first phase of the project comprised a period of consultation by this project team
with headteachers, LEA advisers, officers, EAZ and EiC staff, 14-19 staff and lead
elected members, representatives of primary and special school headteachers, and
trade unions. The improvement strategy negotiated through this process and agreed
by the steering group was based on what was described as a ‘twin-track approach’.
Initial programme goals were set in the light of this dual strategy; short term,
principally to meet politically critical targets for improvement in key measurable
outcomes; and longer term, to better realise the assets of the whole LEA, for the
benefit of young people’s education across the city.
Consequently, the first track involved short term initiatives aiming to assist schools in
raising standards for all pupils, particularly to meet the Government’s floor target
requirements within two years, in which 25% five or more A* to Cs grades in GCSE
was to be achieved by all schools. These responses included the production of
revision guides in some subjects, booster classes for pupils just under the attainment
targets, and rapid introduction of alternative courses taught with additional staffing in
key areas. Some of these initiatives were put in place through coordination between
schools at subject level. Unusually, staff were paid additional money for attending
project meetings out of school. These activities were promoted through collaborative
13
structures and encouraged some sharing of ideas and experiences. However, they did
not usually entail collaboration between schools.
The second track was a longer-term strategy based on strengthening collaboration
amongst the city’s schools. As a relatively small LEA, Nottingham’s education
department was seen to have insufficient resources to meet all the development needs
of schools without input from expertise already located in the schools. Collaboration
was intended to facilitate more sharing of resources than had proved possible under
earlier schemes, such as the Beacon schools initiative. The implication too was that
changing relationships between schools would gradually be mirrored by changing
relationships with officers of the education department. With this in mind, a school
improvement adviser was allocated to work with each quadrant.
TSE involved the setting up of partnership arrangements within four groups of
secondary schools. These quadrants were unusual in that they were not based on
geographical proximity. Rather, they were created in order to achieve groupings that
would each include schools at different stages of development and with varied levels
of achievement, as measured by examinations. In addition, key staff from
Birmingham LEA were attached to each quadrant, to share experience gained from
the preceding four years of collaborative activity there.
The introduction of TSE has to be seen in relation to other initiatives being taken
around the same period. In particular, the strategy connected to the Leadership
Incentive Grant (LIG), a Government scheme introduced in April 2003 that provided
additional financial resources (i.e. £125,000 per school annually, for three years), to
groups of schools facing challenging circumstances that committed themselves to
cooperate on joint improvement plans. The DfES expected ‘all schools receiving the
grant to dedicate significant time and resources to collaboration, by giving and
receiving support’ (DfES, 2003).
In Nottingham the introduction of the strategy for encouraging collaborative activity
pre-dated the introduction of LIG by about a year. Nottingham schools were strongly
encouraged to participate, and the TSE project team did all they could to present
involvement as a positive development for all schools. There was considerable
consultation, for example, with regard to the model for forming the groups of schools,
with the project team giving a strong lead:
We want this process to be as transparent as possible so that people feel
comfortable with the way things have been done. Inevitably, the final
groupings will be a compromise. However we strongly believe that, if
Nottingham schools can work in these new groupings derived from
quadrants and involving a partner Birmingham school, we will be able to
achieve a higher and sustainable level of outcomes for pupils and overall
school performance than could be achieved through more traditional
bilateral collaboration (TSE newsletter, July 2002).
As we have noted, a decision was taken not to group similar schools together, or
schools that were geographically close, but instead to form mixed quadrants in terms
of pupil attainment. The project team looked at the GCSE 5+ A*-C scores for 2001
and on that basis divided the schools into the four groups. A metaphor was used for a
14
while of a lead climber followed by those beneath, with the idea of the team moving
up the rockface together. The variation within quadrants formed in this way was not
just in terms of attainment, of course. Schools varied enormously in terms of the
proportion of their pupils seen as having special educational needs (between 4 and
40% of the GCSE exam cohort in 2004); the proportion of the intake coming from
relatively disadvantaged households, and so on.
The question of choice about participation in the TSE project is an important one for
others learning from this process. In Nottingham, most schools were enthused by the
prospect of collaboration, with a minority of schools being less willing - but at the
same time the success of the project rested on the participation of all schools. For
most headteachers, the project was welcome; for a few, however, their participation
was seen as the result of coercion. The aim of the initial phase was to get all schools
to sign up, and this was achieved.
Management arrangements
As has been explained, day to day coordination of the initiative was shared by a senior
LEA officer and a consultant from the private partner. These two people clearly got
on well and it was evident during their meetings with school representatives that they
had a strong sense of common purpose. It was also helpful that the Mouchel
consultant was a highly regarded retired head from a nearby authority. Indeed, on one
occasion he described himself as ‘the acceptable face of the private sector’.
Existing relationships between schools were an important factor in agreeing the final
formation of the quadrants. One LEA officer explained the significance in this
negotiated process of social and historical aspects of education in the city, and in
particular long-standing competitive situations and animosities. He explained that
some of these had been predictable, whereas others proved to be rather idiosyncratic.
At the culmination of the setup phase of the project, headteachers took part in a
meeting with DfES representives, the director of the LEA, and the private partner, in
order to agree the principles of the project. Eventually, everyone was asked to
withdraw, apart from the headteachers and one LEA officer, who chaired the meeting.
Apparently, there then ensued twenty minutes of honest and frank debate, in which
several changes were made, and after which final groupings were agreed.
TSE embodied the philosophy that schools could make a difference, and that schools
working together could make a difference across the whole city. Coming when it did
in the relatively short history of the LEA, it represented a great opportunity for such
system-wide change.
15
3. Making sense of collaboration
This report describes and evaluates the improvements in Nottingham’s secondary
schools that took place over the three-year period since the start of TSE, in 2002. It
also attempts to determine the extent to which improvements that have occurred can
be connected to the TSE strategy. In this chapter we provide some introductory
thoughts about the nature of collaboration and say a little about the way we engaged
with the way it was interpreted and used in Nottingham.
Conceptualising the task
In considering the overall conceptualisation of the evaluation, we took the view that
our overall focus was not on TSE as such, nor was it only on processes of
collaboration. It struck us that TSE was a time-limited project designed to lead to a
sustainable increase in attainment at GCSE in Nottingham schools. Increasing
collaboration between schools was the main mode designed to bring this about.
However, not all of TSE was about collaboration, and, of course, not all collaboration
between high schools in Nottingham resulted from TSE. In the evaluation process,
these boundaries were sometimes difficult to draw – for example, it was not always
clear what was happening because of TSE, or what activities counted as being
collaborative.
These ambiguities are partly in the nature of collaboration, which is essentially about
crossing boundaries and widening the use of existing resources. In practice, therefore,
our evaluation focused on some aspects of collaboration that did not purely result
from TSE; it also reports on TSE activities that were not based only on collaboration.
TSE
collaboration
The introduction of the Leadership Incentive Grant (LIG) was a further important
factor to be taken into account. Coming a year before LIG, it is likely that TSE in
Nottingham was one of the influences on the formation of the LIG policy in DfES,
and in Nottingham, there was a smooth transition from one to the other insofar as
funding for schools was concerned. It must be remembered, however, that there was
substantial funding for the project structure of TSE which was not available under the
LIG arrangements in other LEAs.
16
Our intention was to describe the processes and activities that took shape in the name
of TSE and collaboration within the school quadrants, and to identify influential
factors, events and contexts behind these developments. Given that collaboration
means many different things to different people, the evaluation required an
understanding both of how collaboration was conceived by people, and what actions
and processes took place within the collaborative effort.
In general we saw collaboration as a social process, and, as such, it was hardly
surprising that it came to look and feel different in each of the four quadrants. The
number of schools involved, their individual characteristics, the development of
shared purpose between school leaders, the extent of opposition to consensus within
quadrants, and leadership and coordination, were all significant factors in determining
the nature and extent of collaboration.
This meant that what went on could only be understood by learning about the
perspectives of those involved, including teachers and other members of staff, school
leaders, LEA officers, and employees of the private partner.
Reflecting on what happened in Nottingham led us to formulate a typology of the
kinds of arrangements that might exist within networks of school. This involve
moves towards deeper, more sustainable relationships, as follows:
Association
This is the traditional pattern, where there are some links between
schools through occasional LEA meetings and in-service events. By and
large, however, this does not involve sharing of knowledge or resources.
Coooperation
This is where closer links develop through participation in meetings and
activities that provide opportunities to contribute experiences. As a
result there may be some incidental sharing of knowledge and resources.
Collaboration
This involves schools agreeing to work together to address particular
problems or challenges. By its nature such activities requires the sharing
of knowledge and resources.
Collegiality
This involves a longer-term relationship between schools that includes
the sharing of responsibility in an inter-dependent way. It leads to the
bringing together of knowledge and resources within an agreed set of
values.
We found this framework helpful in capturing the differences between developments
in the four quadrants, and in understanding how these might be sustained and taken
forward.
The agenda
The central question for this report is, then, deceptively simple. It is: what has
collaboration contributed to school improvement in Nottingham? Bearing this in
mind, we attempt to determine the effectiveness of the structures and processes for
17
collaboration between secondary schools that were explicitly about raising levels of
attainment across the city. As we will show, such processes have involved adaptations
and changes in the relationship between schools and LEA. This is partly about the
decentralisation of responsibility for support and quality control processes, and aims
at a sustainable city-wide improvement in provision for student learning during the
secondary phase.
TSE was focused on the needs of two principal groups of beneficiaries. First of all, it
was motivated by the needs of students in secondary schools – with intended benefits
to their educational participation and attainment. However, these benefits to students
were understood to be mediated almost entirely through the benefits to the
professional capacities and development opportunities of the leadership, teachers and
other staff in secondary schools in the city. So, the second intended beneficiaries
were these staff members.
As we will show, there is no doubt that significant changes have taken place in the
Nottingham education service over the last three years. These changes are clearly
evident in the improvements in the GCSE examination results (see table 5 in Chapter
8). In this report, we aim to illuminate how far these changes can be linked to
collaboration. We ask, could these changes be due to other factors, such as continuing
competition between schools, or the interventions of LEA and national strategies, or
the drive of headteachers to transform their individual schools?
Methods
Within the evaluation, two approaches helped us to address these strategic questions
and in so doing to take steps to ensure the validity of the conclusions we have
reached. In other words, we wanted to be able to answer the question, how do we
know what we claim to know?
The first of these approaches required us to look closely at the processes involved, as
well as changes in behaviour and changes in outcomes. With this in mind, we made
use of three forms of triangulation, an approach to establishing validity that is well
established in the social sciences. These involved: comparing and contrasting
evidence from different people within particular contexts (e.g. teachers, support staff
and students); scrutinising events from different angles by making use of a variety of
methods for collecting information; and using the different perspectives of members
of our research team.
The second approach involved us in a search for other explanations, i.e. other factors
that might explain the improvements we saw going on in the schools. In this respect
we took the advice of Schon (1991) who argues that the fundamental test for validity
is through ‘competitive resistance to refutation’. This involves juxtaposing alternate
plausible accounts of the phenomenon in question. Schon notes: ‘In the absence of an
alternate hypothesis, one is likely to be overwhelmed by the obviousness of what one
already knows’. With this advice in mind, we frequently discussed our emerging
ideas about what happened in Nottingham with colleagues in the LEA. In particular,
we discussed with them their reactions to our draft accounts of the work carried out in
the quadrants, including our tentative explanations as to what lessons might be drawn
from these experiences.
18
In this report, we come to a generally positive conclusion about the role that
collaboration has played in creating paths for improvement in Nottingham. None of
what we say applies across the board in the city – the eighteen secondary schools (at
the outset there were nineteen, but one closed in 2003) and the people involved in
maintaining and developing them are different from each other in their orientations,
ethos, and context, and it would be arrogant to suggest that we can sum up this
difference in a few pages. Nevertheless, there are overall patterns to describe, and
overall lessons to be learnt.
Path-making
There has been little accepted understanding of how collaboration should or can
develop between schools in England. DfES guidelines offered as part of the
‘Leadership Incentive Grant’ suggested some indicators for judging the extent of
collaboration, but nothing about how it is to be achieved – and meanwhile, the legacy
of years of competition is written into the relationships between schools at every
level. One deputy head gave a small example that illustrates the nature of that
competition:
I’ve been teaching for 13 years. For a while there was a notion that schools
worked together. Then we had ten years of competition, from the late
eighties, early nineties… I remember running round for a policy on gifted
and talented children. I didn’t feel able to ask anyone in other schools.
Now that’s changed. I can say, ‘We’re part of a quadrant, we’re supposed
to be helping each other’ (deputy head)
Developing collaboration involves school leaders, whilst still in a competitive
situation, in expanding the limits of working together. We have admiration for the
people and schools represented in this report for the steps they have taken towards
purposeful collaboration. In making sense of their efforts we found it helpful to use a
metaphor for this development, seeing it as a process of creating new paths for
improvement – with headteachers and others making these paths as they travelled
together. Not so much pathfinding, then, as path-making. Once made, paths make
further improvement easier.
We have found that collaboration is experienced very differently as it is taking shape,
compared with the way it is described later. At the time it is not a smooth
development, though it tends to be seen in that way afterwards. At the time, the
process of coming together in any way, either in shared activities or in sharing
resources, or in agreeing on priorities for development, necessarily involves at least
some people in giving up some of their autonomy, and taking account of people and
situations which they had not previously had to be mindful of. There is every reason
to expect this to be a rough process.
Analyzing the evidence
This report describes processes and changes in schools and LEA, drawing on
extensive fieldwork over the period April 2003 to December 2004. What we describe
is specific to the context of the City of Nottingham, and we would caution that many
of the lessons that we draw are partly dependent on this context. There are, we
believe, important lessons for colleagues elsewhere, but we do not provide a recipe for
19
improvement through collaboration which could simply be taken and replicated in
another context.
With that caveat, we do feel that there is much to learn by studying the experience of
collaboration as represented in this report. The accounts provided here substantiate the
significant idea that collaboration cannot be separated from social processes, and from
the commitment to build trust through working on joint activities with shared goals.
Briefly, our first analytical strategy was to identify a chain of connections through a
series of inter-connected accounts of practice, tracing the effect of collaborative
activity and process on educational practice and student outcomes. Accounts of
practice make it possible to look for causal links in the process, and see more than a
jigsaw of events and processes. For the whole of collaborative development that has
taken place is more than the sum of its parts. The individual elements put in place in
the quadrants have been in place elsewhere – and yet in those other places they have
not been associated with significant changes in results.
Each account identifies the collaboration which we saw going on, describing some of
the mechanics of collaboration, such as the alternative paths created with new
relationships, and the role of coordinators in making links and doing detailed
planning to make new activities happen. The accounts look at what people are
collaborating to achieve, and what practice is being challenged or supported through
the collaborative processes. They aim to contribute to the building of a framework for
assessing the value of collaboration, not only on intended outcomes, such as pupil
performance, but on features of process.
The second analytical strategy was to search for other plausible explanations for
changes, such as individual and unrelated improvement in many schools
simultaneously, or other LEA level initiatives such as supported self-review and the
KS3 strategy, and to consider the adequacy of these alternative explanations for the
changes that have occurred.
The evaluation process aimed to create space in which different views of the
collaboration process, and different claims, concerns and issues arising, could be
understood, subjected to critique, and taken into account. Observing meetings and
being part of collaborative events has made it possible to see better than through
interviews alone how people in the quadrants came together to get things done, how
they coped with difficulties, and how they decided on and maintained a focus. We felt
that it was important to see how the groups worked together, making decisions; to
learn about the various roles taken.
Accounts of practice
Towards the end of our involvement we generated detailed case studies of each
quadrant, designed to help the reader to experience what stakeholders believe about
the process, and also to see some of the underlying motives, feelings, and rationales
leading to those beliefs. The accounts are characterized by a degree of thick
description that describes elements of the context in a way that would be recognisable
to those involved, and enable others to imagine the context in enough detail to learn
about the practicalities involved.
20
Where possible, were commented on by representatives of the group concerned. This
enabled us to correct factual errors and to add further details. Inevitably the
discussions about the reports involved disagreements in relation to some of our
interpretations.
This reminds us that, as it goes through the process of
implementation, a massive enterprise such as TSE is subject to adaptation in relation
to particular contexts. At the same time, it also involves interpretation by individual
stakeholders, in ways that mean that the project takes the form of a multiple reality.
In other words, in practice there were many TSEs.
We listened carefully to these competing arguments about the nature of what
happened and in some instances this led us to make adjustments in our analysis.
Nevertheless, as evaluators employed to make judgements based on a systematic
scrutiny of evidence, in this report we draw our own conclusions and we believe these
to be valid.
In the next four chapters we provide accounts of the developments in each of the
quadrants. These accounts of practice are drawn from our more detailed case study
reports. In each case they summarise what occurred within the quadrant, focusing
specifically on critical moments and decisions in collaborative working. The chapters
point towards what we see as key outcomes and benefits of collaborative working.
They also include summaries of the schools’ results in the GSCE examinastions over
the last three years. Unfortunately no allowance for prior attainment or other
characteristics of cohorts is made in this analysis, since value-added data was not
available for the period concerned.
21
4. Sharing resources: an account of Quadrant A
There were five schools in this quadrant. Initially the plan was that a Birmingham
school would also be a member although as with all but one of the quadrants, this
relationship was not really developed. The schools were extremely varied in terms of
performance in examinations. Four of the schools are seen as facing challenging
circumstances and at the outset of TSE one was in special measures. The fifth
member was a large, highly successful voluntary aided school. There was also a
special school linked to the quadrant.
Our account of what happened indicates that collaborative activities were slow to
materialise within the quadrant. In part this may have been because of changes in
management within the partner schools, with new headteachers appointed in three of
the five schools. Gradually, however, the quadrant developed a series of potentially
worthwhile initiatives in relation to the sharing of resources between schools. The
progress that has been made suggests that collaboration need not be dependent on one
particular group of headteachers. Having said that, the account also illustrates how the
enthusiasm and commitment to collaboration of individual headteachers can influence
the positions taken by others.
Developing an agenda
Collaboration in the quadrant did not start particularly smoothly. Indeed, the most
successful school in the group played very little part in what happened. Reflecting on
the early phase, two headteachers commented:
It’s a funny thing the quadrant. It was imposed on us, otherwise we
certainly would not have seen it as a priority. But it was perceptive. The
links, where they’ve gelled, have been positive. Such as a Geography
link we have with another QA school. But you can’t make the gelling
happen (headteacher)
We were very keen not to do things for the sake of it, as far as TSE goes.
(headteacher)
Following the launch events, the quadrant set up cross-school working groups based
mainly on subject areas, creating the basis for what was intended to become a network
of expertise and support. The four schools involved early on (plus the special school)
agreed that having staff out during the day left the schools too fragile. Instead, they
used funds to pay staff for twilight sessions in working groups. Apparently, some of
these worked reasonably well, others not so well. Humanities got together fairly
regularly – the heads of department mainly – and produced some useful materials.
The quadrant also experimented with meetings for deputy headteachers, but it was
decided that the group was too small to provide a useful forum.
The quadrant organised a shared inset day for cross-phase working groups, and further
inset days where held so that staff from schools across the quadrant were working
together. These were seen as being successful in that they generated resources in some
areas. For example:
22
There’s been some good work on ICT; but it’s involved the relevant and
interested staff – we haven’t tried to involve everyone across all five
schools.
There were barriers that got in the way of these efforts, not least the relatively nongeographical nature of the quadrant:
We are the most widely dispersed, with two schools in the north, one in
the south, two in the west and one in the east - it is a difficulty when
more staff are involved.
Sharing resources
Whilst these initial activities were mainly well received, by their nature they tended to
be rather general and unfocused. Nevertheless, the headteachers began to see that
collaboration could have direct and tangible benefits. For example:
The headteacher of A5 has been wonderful. He gave me a drama teacher
for two days for master classes (headteacher).
Headteachers also reported on the personal assistance they have gained from their
involvement. For example:
‘The other headteachers helped me’…
‘The quadrant has been good CPD for the headteachers. I think one of the
new headteachers in particular would say that she has learned a lot and
gained confidence through the quadrant’…
‘The quadrant certainly helps me to clarify my thoughts, and I think the
same is true for the others’
Gradually, then, the work of the quadrant moved from a rather generalised exploration
of the idea of working together, towards a much more specific focus on the sharing of
resources between schools. In some instances this involved ways of retaining able
staff who would otherwise have moved elsewhere, and who subsequently became
instrumental in facilitating school improvements activities.
One significant example of this was made possible through a combination of
circumstances and an eye for collaborative opportunities. One of the quadrant
headteachers tells the story:
We realised in a quadrant meeting that we were all in dire straights in
English. None of us had a head of English, with the exception of A3. The
headteacher there said I’ve got an excellent teacher. The QA link adviser
knew the teacher, and she managed and facilitated the process. It is a
middle leader post, and the four schools interested share a quarter of the
cost (headteacher of A1).
Another head explained:
23
Each school has different curriculum strengths and we’ve shared all that
information between ourselves. We aim to keep expertise in the quadrant.
The AST for example, was an English teacher at A3 and would have left if
we hadn’t decided all to contribute to a shared AST post for her to work
across the quadrant (headteacher of A4).
The headteachers together acted as the line manager for the shared member of staff,
but the contributions of the link adviser were also quite crucial. She had a background
in English teaching, and orchestrated the development of the post.
The contributions of this teacher varied from school to school, depending on
circumstances. In some cases she supported heads of department in strengthening
their leadership practices; in others she worked with staff in developing schemes of
work and resources; and on other occasions she coached teachers in relation to their
classroom practices.
The teacher involved explained that the different circumstances in the schools
demanded flexible responses:
I go to each school, and meet with the head of department; sometimes it
gets very busy. I’m like a member of department, training NQTs,
planning, doing demonstration lessons. It can be powerful, but you need to
know the group. Mostly I work with groups of teachers, supporting
department planning days, attending department meetings if I am there at
the right time. I’ve also assisted in analysing results – first for them, then
with them. Then sometimes the best thing I can do is to get my head down
and mark for them – which is also good for keeping in touch with the
levels.
Working across the schools helped her to move resources and ideas around. She
explained:
You get to see what is going on elsewhere, and I keep asking different
people, “have you tried this?”. All five English departments have
strengths, but I’m the link between them, the buffer…. It’s been a massive
learning experience; my own teaching has improved so much. Some of the
schools working on deficit budgets, whilst one department is overstaffed.
The results are different across the departments – but none are really
lagging behind. Typically, I’ll do a video of someone, and show it across
the schools. That’s easier to arrange than mutual observation, and becomes
less of a show.
Her work clearly required sensitivity as she attempted to integrate herself in the social
climates in each of the schools. Reflecting on these challenges, she explained:
Some heads of department feel that they have to justify themselves to me,
seeing me as an authority, to an extent, asking me to look at what they’ve
done. In other schools, we plan and work well together… It is helpful that
I’ve been a deputy head of department, and can assist in the
bureaucracy…. Some teachers don’t trust me initially... That I might talk
24
about them to others. But I’m very much at home in the departments – I go
to four Christmas parties. I go to meetings where it’s appropriate, and get
to know groups of kids. They see me around…. Also, schools are
changing; some of them feel very different. I used to hate going into one
of them, but it seems to have turned a corner now.
With the current national shortage of English teachers, this example is particularly
significant. Certainly, in the context of QA at that time it was vital, given that at one
stage there were no qualified English teachers in four of the quadrant schools. As one
head remarked, ‘She’s made a huge impact in this school’.
Redistributing expertise
The story of how QA addressed difficulties in providing appropriate English teaching
in all of the schools draws our attention to a very worrying factor that undermines the
capacity of a city like Nottingham to provide a high quality education for all young
people in its community. That is, some schools, particularly those that have a
relatively poor reputation, have found it impossible to appoint suitably qualified
teachers for some areas of the curriculum. On the other hand, schools that are seen as
being more successful tend to face far fewer difficulties in this respect. The worry is
that these inequitable circumstances act in a way that further strengthens the gap
between high achieving and low achieving schools.
In Nottingham, music is a striking example of this phenomenon. We were told that at
one point recently three schools in the city were unable to offer music because of
having no qualified staff. At the same time, students in another city school had access
during a typical week to something like 14 musicians.
Some of the developments in QA point to some interesting possibilities for addressing
these unacceptable differences. Music education has suffered in recent years in all but
one of the quadrant schools – and in that school, the value of music in the curriculum
is clearly demonstrated. Fifteen years ago, A5 was not a particularly successful
school. The newly appointed headteacher at that time instituted music through the
curriculum, following an American model whereby every student does music, in a
choir, group or orchestra. The school is now a performing arts college, and a PGCE
training provider for music, and is facilitating outreach across the quadrant outside the
school day.
The quadrant identified music as an area for joint work, and was selected by the Paul
Hamlyn Foundation to take part in ‘Musical Futures’, an initiative that provides
additional funding to encourage much wider participation in music. Locating this
initiative within the quadrant, with its established links, has helped to push it along.
One of the consultants involved argued that the involvement of an existing group of
schools had created a better context for exploring innovatory ideas.
The first major event, called ‘Music Junction’, was held in July 2003. Quadrant
schools took over a four-storey night club with recording studios for a series of
activities that involved different forms of music, such as samba, contributions from
Halle orchestra members, and a thrash metal bands competition. Recalling the event, a
teacher commented:
25
They had 150 year sevens there, and they were a bit shocked. All the
quadrant schools were there, with year tens helping to run it (A1 music
teacher).
Other activities took place in an attempt to make better use of available music
expertise across the quadrant. For example, the only music teacher in A1 visited the
head of music at A3, another one-person department. He explained:
I observed lessons, and we shared resources. The catchment area there is
quite similar, an estate, and the key is ways of engaging pupils. Not
many have done music at primary school. We’ve had four or five full
days working together and half an inset day, sharing ideas. We focus on
one class, one topic, developing ideas that could be used in either school.
For example, we worked on classroom management in keyboard lessons.
Commenting on the impact of all of this, one of the headteachers explained:
One man departments are difficult. There are no advisers, and there is
real value in working collaboratively. I think we should choose days,
common themes to INSET, training. Small departments exchanging,
some of that is going on.
Another collaborative arrangement in the quadrant focused on modern foreign
languages. Here, however, the pattern of working was slightly different. The process
started at the TSE launch in 2003. Since then, the links have developed mainly
between schools A1 and A5. One of the A1 teachers involved explained:
There is some sharing of resources - they copied cds for us, and sent
them. We meet at network meetings. We are in touch on a regular basis,
and have just been invited to a party with the A5 staff. We feel we can
trust them, and we use the same textbook. Relationships are so important
– it’s not that they are in the same situation, but there is something very
useful for us in working with them. This is a community school, whereas
they draw on a wide range off pupils across the city. Always getting
things through the post from the head of languages there. We did a
lesson on Portuguese with them as an inset, and Celia and I found we
were able to translate, using Latin and Italian. Things like that are really
interesting. So far we haven’t observed any lessons but I would like to.
Moving forward
Interestingly, systematic coordination has not been a major feature of the way this
quadrant has developed. Instead, particular initiatives with their own logic have been
carried out in the name of the quadrant, and then made sense of together and to the
outside world. Relatively few resources were allocated to running the quadrant: an
administrator works for just a day a week on quadrant business. Indeed, it seems that
the main drivers of quadrant activities were the headteachers themselves. As we have
noted, the head of the most successful school in the group was initially rather
reluctant to commit time to the initiative. Subsequently, however, he and his school
gradually became more involved and this opened up more possibilities.
In the slowly evolving process of learning to collaborate, the heads felt the need to
call on external resources occasionally, particularly when problems came up, and it
26
was usually at crisis points that the link adviser played a significant role. For
example, one head commented:
The QA link adviser has been my best support. She’s been brilliant (QA
headteacher).
Similarly, another head said:
(The adviser) has been instrumental in keeping our quadrant going.
It is interesting to reflect on why this adviser’s contributions are seen to be so
significant. The adviser herself sees that the quadrant has being one of the levers for
change in the move from what she saw as largely ‘passive teaching’, with too little
focus on learning, towards the development of practices that help to encourage higher
expectations amongst students in the city. The quadrant has, she argues, opened up the
schools to each other – creating trust between them. She also feels that the lack of
competition between the quadrant schools has been a helpful factor. She notes, for
example, how she is able to broker the sharing of practice between schools. Often on a
school visit, she will comment: ‘Oh that’s interesting, the headteacher of A1’s just
done that…’
In addition though, maintaining trust between headteachers has required intervention
on more than one occasion. The adviser explained how during particularly sensitive
periods she played a central role in maintaining relationships – emphasising again the
extent to which strategic collaboration is always a social process.
During the second year of collaboration, the adviser organized a consultant to work
for 16 days, paid by the LEA, to ‘kick start the quadrant’ by carrying out an audit of
curricular strengths and weaknesses, with the stipulation that he was able to work
with a named deputy looking at needs. This had the effect of getting people together
in a more structured way, and led up to a joint inset day. Partly as a result of this,
headteachers in the quadrant told a story of their increasing sense of purpose.
By July 2004 the talk amongst the heads was of a ‘new improved spirit’, with a
successful joint INSET closure day being seen as ‘a big step forward’. They had
worked on sampling of student work, thinking skills and the use of white board use,
and further similar activities were planned for the future. More recently, the quadrant
had set up a support network for assistant and deputy headteachers, and agreed on an
action learning cycle to carry out research and share learning at the end of each term.
Now, talk about collaboration seems to be part of what binds this group together. As
they talk about their work together, quadrant headteachers seem to build up their
sense of quadrant identity and purpose. For example:
You’ve always been really supportive of me (AST speaking to a
headteacher)
You can learn more together - that’s a mind set - than through fighting
with each other… (headteacher)
Commenting on the business of ways of talking, one recently appointed head made
comparisons with traditional meetings organised by LEA staff:
27
If you go to heads’ meetings you’re talked at. At quadrant meetings we
talk in different ways. The size of the group is helpful here.
Looking to the future, the same head felt that now is a good moment to think about
how the work of the quadrant can be moved on. With this in mind, she went on to
say:
We now need to re-draw what we are about. What are our values? And I
think the heads need to be leading that debate. We need to use
difference more
Outcomes
As we have indicated, the development of collaboration in QA has been a gradual
process. Factors such as the relatively recent appointment of some heads and the
initial reluctance of one head to take part undoubtedly helped to slow things down.
Nevertheless there have been improvements in practice within the schools and
significant changes in relationships between the schools, particularly at the level of
the headships.
As we have indicated, attainment data is not directly attributable to TSE, or to the
process of collaboration. Nevertheless, we believe that the significant processes
described have had an influence on results. Table 1 summarises the changes in
examination results across the schools in the quadrant. Note that the quadrant average
takes into account the different numbers of pupils in the exam cohort in each school
each year.
2001
5+
no
school
A*-C pass
A1
48% 4%
A2
9% 22%
A3
20% 4%
A4
17% 9%
A5
59% 1%
Quadrant 32% 6.8%
2002
5+
no
A*-C pass
12%
9%
15% 15%
13% 14%
19% 16%
73%
1%
28% 10.9%
2003
5+
no
A*-C pass
26% 9%
15% 9%
35% 11%
30% 14%
74% 1%
37% 8.9%
2004
5+
no
A*-C pass
31% 11%
18% 22%
28% 15%
34% 14%
78% 1%
39% 12%
Table 1: GCSE results for Quadrant A schools, 2001-2004
28
%
% 5+ A-C GCSE, Quad A
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
It is important to remember that no allowance for prior attainment or other
characteristics of cohorts is made in this analysis, since value-added data was not
available for the period concerned. Given that serious limitation, the data suggests that
attainment in relation to national targets in the schools in Quadrant A increased over
the last three years, quite steadily in four of them, but that no overall change occurred
in relation to the number of pupils leaving with no qualifications. What is also
suggested by the data is a change in trend in three of the schools after 2002, which
provides some more evidence of the impact of TSE on these results.
One of the key outcomes of the way that collaboration has developed has been a
greater sense of ownership of the process by staff in these schools. As one
headteacher explained:
In terms of CPD, the quadrant has generated new opportunities. Schools
have similar agendas around leadership. The quadrant creates
possibilities for networking and sharing, and as a result my staff feel
more confident, even if its just through the opportunity to get out and
talk with colleagues in other schools, to see that the grass isn’t always
greener on the other side of the fence, that other people share similar
problems, and so the possibility is to come up with some solutions
together (headteacher).
The most important purpose of any collaborative effort is to improve educational
outcomes for the students. We close this account by illustrating the value of talking
with students to understand the possibilities and constraints that they live with, and
the challenge that schools face in achieving sustained improvements.
In the cafeteria of one school I talked with two pupils in Year 7. One,
small for her age, tells me that her mother is worried that there is a
medical issue – ‘she tells me to eat anything’. She lives about half a mile
away from the school, and watches ‘loads of TV – I watch everything,
Big Brother, Eastenders, then a DVD that my mum gets’. She was
confident and articulate, saying that she likd ‘Drama and PE, but Maths
29
and Humanities are my favourites, I hate technology and French though.
There’s my technology teacher – she’s really strict, stricter than the
headteacher’. Almost all the time we were talking, she was managing to
largely ignore the antagonism of ‘the worst boy in my class, don’t talk to
him sir, behind you’. The other girl, meanwhile, is initially much less
forthcoming, and looks really tired. She has to get two buses to school
(‘if I leave at 7.30 I get to the city centre at 8.00 and here at 8.30’). She
tells me that she was up till 3.00 am watching TV, then got up at 6.30. I
suggest that they look after each other by nagging each other about food
and sleep respectively (evaluator fieldnotes, 2004).
This short cameo may appear to be a distraction from the task of analysing impact in
an evaluation report. However, within this discussion, many aspects of daily life for
secondary school students are reflected. Worries about diet, varying amounts of sleep,
concerns about subject preferences, supportive and unsupportive peers and staff,
transport difficulties, and friendships are part of the realities of school for many young
people in the city. This cameo serves as a reminder that improvements in educational
outcomes are rooted in such realities.
30
5. Becoming collegial: an account of Quadrant B
Quadrant B is smaller than the other three, consisting of four schools. The proposed
involvement of a Birmingham school never happened.
The schools are
geographically less spread across the city than those in the other quadrants, and, as we
will explain, have developed a particularly close collaboration through sharing
resources. The closure of one of the schools in July 2004 is an important part of the
story of the quadrant, a process managed with the help of the other quadrant schools
and resulting in the school’s final cohort attaining more highly than their predecessors
in previous years.
Notable improvements in results have also taken place in another quadrant school that
was in serious weaknesses until December 2003. There are many ways in which the
process of development at that school was supported by quadrant processes. For much
of the two years, the number of schools in the quadrant has been a worry, particularly
because only two of the schools had LIG funding. However, there are strong
indications that the schools are committed to a collaboration which will continue
without such funding
The group of three schools which currently make up the quadrant are increasingly
working towards becoming a form of federation, sharing responsibility for progress in
all of the partner schools and pooling resources for teaching, building maintenance,
and various educational projects. The working relationships seem to be based on
mutual benefit, with all schools gaining from the collaborative working arrangements
that have been set up. However, the closure of one of the schools means that there are
less people from whom to pull expertise and share resources.
Developing a ‘soft federation’
External pressure to collaborate, in the shape of TSE, was a necessary starting point
for headteachers who did not on the face of it have much in common. Presented with
the opportunity to work together, the heads quickly decided that they would manage
the quadrant directly, thus ensuring that developments fitted into existing school
development priorities. So, for example, during the first year, one quadrant priority
was a collaboration between small departments with restricted opportunities for
teamwork.
The heads sort to encourage collaboration as a general principle, but only involved
teachers where it really fulfilled a need. As a result, some departments in the quadrant
met on a termly basis, but not all. Schemes of work were shared in KS3 geography,
for example, with each school benefiting from the strategies for lesson differentiation
put in place for the range of students expected at the other schools. The benefits also
quickly became clear in terms of policy development. For example, where one school
needed a race equality policy, rather than starting from scratch, they rang the other
schools and asked for assistance.
Collaboration tended to grow from the commitment of headteachers and gradually
permeated the thinking of others within the school communities. This reminds us of
the social nature of what we are describing, as indicated by comments such as the
following:
31
The more it beds in – the trust, I’ll support you back, the better. The
more success we have as a quadrant the better (deputy headteacher, QA)
This being the case, it would seem to be necessary (but not sufficient) to have the
right mix of personalities in place - people who can relate to one another and work
together, pushing along joint activities. In this respect, the headteachers of B3 and
B4, in particular, proved to be a complementary combination in terms of experience
and focus, and largely shared values, despite the differences in the schools they lead.
It is worth noting that the tradition behind B3, a voluntary aided school, began back in
the eighteenth century, as an educational foundation for the poor. The headteacher
saw the collaboration with schools serving less advantaged areas as falling well within
that tradition.
One of the headteachers explained how the idea of their becoming a loose federation
developed as a result of the relationships already established from the early days of
the quadrant – and because of the openness of all of the headteachers to taking on new
ideas. In this respect it was significant that the strength of relationships between the
headteachers enabled the quadrant to develop beyond the suspicion of takeover by an
already successful school, into a partnership in which students, staff and the
leadership teams in all schools have much to gain.
Most of the initial practical collaborative activities concerned the supply of staff and
services within the schools. There were massive staffing problems in the spring term
of 2003 at B3, and school B4 assisted by lending staff where possible. During the
period of the Ofsted inspection, site management staff were leant to assist, and this led
to a plan for site management. In addition, catering staff were jointly appointed in
order to increase efficiencies in the supply of services.
Gradually, the idea of sharing of teaching resources developed in a way that seems to
be valuable in relation to the appointment and retention of staff. Indeed, one of the
heads argues that for collaboration to work, ‘shared staffing is essential’. So far, a
range of approaches have been explored. For example, a joint advertisement was very
successful in attracting teachers to the quadrant who may not have applied to those
individual schools with relatively poor levels of performance. Meanwhile, the need to
appoint part-time posts has on some occasions been avoided, by combining posts
across schools posts. A joint staffing plan was put in place, which covers joint training
arrangements for post holders, such as those who take on the role of second-indepartment. Finally, graduate teachers move between the partner schools during their
placements, and there is an intention to become a joint training school.
Provision for students in the sixth form is now made across the quadrant, with
students able to move between sites for different courses, utilising more fully the
variety of teaching experience within the schools. The quadrant has begun to badge
some activities jointly, so that students and parents are opting into them as quadrant
events or provision.
Curriculum projects have been a key activity, symbolising the impact of collaboration
within QB. A part-time collaborative creative arts project worker was appointed in
2003 to work as a resource in different curricular areas across the quadrant, and was
32
based in the closing school. The brief was to create community arts projects, the
costs to be shared across the quadrant. An artist worked with students categorised as
having special educational needs from each of the four schools to produce a mural.
This proved to be more cost-effective for two weeks than for odd days at separate
schools, and, at the same time, it created an excellent opportunity for students to meet
peers from other schools.
Creative writing competitions and theatre trips were arranged for students gifted in
creative arts, and a mass choir, drawing from the four schools, performed in public to
great acclaim. Another project involved giant art, and the project worker was able to
help headteachers to choose the most appropriate person as artist in residence – a
charismatic personality, able to reach students in the closing school, some of who
were said to be fragile and changeable.
Supporting schools in difficulty
The experience of Q3 provides some powerful indications of how collaboration
between schools can provide support during times of crisis. For example, B1 had
reopened as a fresh start school in 2001 with just seven of its original staff. After
what was described as two very hard years, it came out of serious weaknesses in 2003.
In that year the proportion of students achieving five or more A* to C grades in GCSE
rose from 6 to 26%. Reflecting on this striking improvement, the head recalls the
support gained from within the quadrant. She explains:
TSE takes pressure off people… Knowing that you can ring someone…
galvanises you to do things sometimes’.
Whilst the credit for the transformation in the school must, of course, go to the
headteacher and staff at B1, the evidence is that the quadrant had enhanced in many
different ways what the school has been able to offer to its students. Furthermore,
collaboration with other headteachers was a support and a challenge to the head. As
described by the head of B3, the quadrant increased the confidence of staff towards
innovation: ‘Staff are prepared to push the boat out’.
Perhaps the greatest achievement of QB, however, relates to the way it was able to
support staff and students in school B2 during the period prior to its closure in the
summer of 2004. The circumstance of that particular school arose from a series of
interconnected factors.
Some city schools are popular with parents and, in line with Government policy, have
tended to admit many more students than in previous years. Together with falling
birth rates that have created an excess of secondary school places in the city, this led
to the decision to close several schools. B2 had suffered from falling roles in
particular and had been in survival mode for several years. Increasingly, the school
had been deserted by the families of the relatively wealthy area in which it was
located, with the remaining students coming from other Nottingham estates through
streets in which no one knew them.
In 2003, the Year 8 students came from 23 different primary schools, and from many
more different ethnic groups than the population in the district where the school is
33
located. The decision to close was made in April 2003, and the last students left in
July 2004. Then, in September 2004, the building became part of the larger and more
successful B3.
The head of B2 had been appointed just a year earlier, when the school had only 184
pupils on roll, including just fourteen in year 7. He recalls that at the time of his
appointment there had been no suggestion that the school might close. The overall
capacity of the school was 580, and during the year 2002-03 the number on roll rose
to 420, as refugees and other arrivals to the city were placed in the school. Inevitably
the school was also used to place students excluded from elsewhere. During that
same period the headteacher tried to arrange alternative schools for the year 10 pupils
as soon as possible, to avoid disruption to their GCSE courses.
In many such situations, the final cohorts of students left at a closing school suffer, as
key staff seek other posts and leave, creating a ‘sinking ship’ with an increasingly
negative approach amongst those students and staff who are left behind. The quadrant
made a major contribution in helping the school to avoid such a situation. They did
this by creating a sense of community around the school, working together on joint
projects, sharing resources, and requiring newly appointed staff to work in the school
as the first year of their contract within the quadrant. So, for example, the quadrant
advertised for various vacant teaching posts and the head of the school found, ‘we
were able to get at a field of staff which we couldn’t get at before, and appointed a
teacher who will move to B3 next year’. Similarly, the head of English at B2 applied
for and got the post of second in department at B3 to start from the year following the
closure. Meanwhile, B3’s site supervisors took over for a year, which came as a relief
to the head of B2.
During this period a newly appointed link adviser played a supportive role, not least in
emphasising the need to focus on standards in teaching and learning. But in general,
the quadrant support was the key strategy, leaving the LEA to step back from the
school, confident that the situation was under control.
It was a feature of the collaboration around the closing school that resources flowed
both to and from the school. For the headteacher of B2, the other heads were a ready
source of support and advice - ‘I’ll go to the quadrant much quicker than to the LEA
if I have an issue’ – while B2 was able to offer strong teachers in subjects, including
Art for example, to work in the other schools part-time.
In the summer of 2004, 150 year eleven students attained what were the best results at
the school for years (although figures for closing schools are not published). The
remaining 180 students moved to other schools around the city. At the same time,
examination results across the quadrant continued to improve (see table 2). Note that
the quadrant average relates to the total exam cohort across the quadrant.
School
B1
B2
B3
2001
2002
5+
no
5+
no
A*-C pass A*-C pass
17%
55%
18%
2%
16%
16%
53%
23%
12%
3%
34
2003
5+
no
A*-C pass
2004
5+
no
A*-C pass
26%
16%
64%
24%
15%
51%
1%
25%
18%
2%
Quadrant
43%
7.2%
31%
12.1%
41%
13.3%
38%
7.6%
Table 2: GCSE results for Quadrant B schools, 2001-2004
% 5+ A-C GCSE, Quad B
70%
60%
%
50%
B1
40%
B2
30%
B3
20%
10%
0%
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
In this quadrant, changes in cohort size (from 242 pupils in 2001, up to 403 and down
to 360 in 2004) and school closure and reopening had a significant effect, so that no
overall pattern in results is suggested. What is clear is that there was a downward
trend in the number of pupils leaving with no qualifications.
Looking to the future
The available evidence suggests that the sense of collaboration amongst the remaining
schools in QB will continue to deepen. Close links are being fostered between the
governing bodies of the schools. A headship vacancy in one of the schools has led the
governors there to stress that they will be seeking to appoint somebody who will be
committed to the further development of the quadrant. In these senses it seems
reasonable to argue that the changes that have occurred are leading to a far more
permanent set of relationships based on agreement about values.
In thinking about such a development, it is helpful to take account of Fielding’s
(1999) distinction between ‘collaboration’ and ‘collegiality’, a distinction already
mentioned in Chapter 3. Fielding characterises ‘collaboration’ as being driven by a
set of common concerns, narrowly functional’, and focussed strongly on intended
gains. In such contexts, the partners in a collaborative activity are regarded as a
resource, or a source of information. Fielding goes on to suggest that collaboration is
a plural form of individualism in which participants are typically intolerant of time
spent on anything other than the task in hand or the core purposes of the business. He
argues that once the driving force behind collaboration is weakened, the task has been
completed or priorities have changed, such collaborative working arrangements may
dissipate, disappear or become more tenuous. ‘Collegiality’, on the other hand, is
characterised as being much more robust. It is overridingly communal and is rooted
in shared ideals, aspirations and valued social ends. Collegiality is, therefore, by
definition, less reliant upon narrowly defined and predictable gains.
35
As we see in our accounts of practice in the Nottingham quadrants, instances of
schools working together often do not seem to fall neatly into either collaborative or
collegial activity. Indeed, it is dangerous to describe a school as doing anything, since
they are complex social organisations within which, inevitably, there will be many
varied views of things that occur. Moreover, it may be that sometimes collaboration
needs to be a forerunner to collegiality. In other words, stakeholders may experience
the practical benefits of collaborating when the outcomes are clearly defined, whilst
seeking to develop a common language and shared aspirations that might, in the
longer term, provide a basis for collegiality.
In the meantime, what the schools in QB have achieved as they become more
collaborative is a guided choice for parents and students, and an opportunity to
redefine quality, beyond the branding of individual schools. The headteacher of B3
now talks of ‘bussing by consent’, describing the possibilities for creating a good
social mix in all the schools working under a joint banner. There is an important
ethnic dimension to this, of course, suggesting that increased collaboration amongst
schools may be an important way of tackling the ethnic divide built up between
schools in Nottingham.
Even more importantly, guided choice extends to staff as well. Joint advertisements
mean that the schools are able to deploy teachers for their mutual benefit, in a way
that everyone gains – teachers in experience, schools in flexibility.
36
6. Developing a strategic approach: an account of Quadrant C
Amongst the four quadrants established as part of TSE, Quadrant C developed
probably the most stable basis for collaborative work and, at the same time, a level of
considerable autonomy within the LEA. That is not to suggest that there is a useful
ranking exercise to be carried out between the four quadrants. Quadrants A, B and D
developed in different ways, each reflecting their own circumstances. It is also true
that all of the quadrants have much to learn from one other, as was evident during a
cross quadrant conference that was held October 2004.
The distinctive feature of Quadrant C was its struggle to develop an increasingly
strategic approach to collaborative school improvement. This account documents that
learning, in two senses. The first concerns the key decisions and critical moments that
shaped the collaboration between schools; the second looks at the changes that the
collaboration has brought about by comparing the situation at an early stage and later
on.
Shaping collaboration
From the outset, Quadrant C included five secondary schools (with a sixth active
partner school in Birmingham), all in different contexts and with varied average
attainments, but with headteachers committed to working together. The range of
schools involved was fairly representative of the city at the start of the process, in that
it included one school in special measures, three others also working with a high
proportion of young people in challenging circumstances, and one high-performing
school drawing some students from more advantaged areas of the city. The
Birmingham school also worked with students in challenging circumstances, and the
headteacher remained a very active and supportive member of the quadrant steering
group over two and a half years.
As we have explained, the idea of collaboration was largely imposed on the schools in
Nottingham and, inevitably, this led to some degree of resistance. In Quadrant C,
however, there was evidence of a positive attitude towards the idea from the outset. It
may well be that the ‘right mix’ of personalities at the beginning may have had
something to do with this.
The development of collaborative patterns of working within the quadrant grew
steadily. The headteachers consistently made attendance at half-termly strategy group
meetings a high priority. At such meetings individuals were seen to made sense
together of collaboration, and in so doing, developed a stronger quadrant identity. All
five schools agreed to resource quadrant processes at a high level by combining a
large proportion of their individual LIG funds (contributing £30,000 each per annum)
and continued to maintain this commitment.
The behaviour of the senior staff prior to the start of strategy meetings was, we felt,
indicative of how relationships had developed in the quadrant. Jokes mixed with oneto-one business were typical, creating the feeling that this was a group working
comfortably together. Nevertheless, from an early stage it was noticeable that there
was a critical edge to their collaboration. For example, at one meeting the heads
37
discussed whether development or student achievement should be the priority, or
whether they should find a way to combine these. In discussions such as this we saw
evidence of how those involved developed a level of trust that enabled members of
the group to challenge each other where necessary. On some occasions, the presence
of certain LEA officers and the consultant from Mouchel in these meetings meant that
an outsider view could help to resolve differences.
The presence of a Birmingham headteacher was also important in this respect. He
clearly saw himself as part of the group, not just as an adviser, but also as a learner.
He explained that he valued the ideas that were generated in the strategy meetings,
and the opportunities for dialogue about values and principles of school improvement.
In talking about the Ofsted report on his own school he referred specifically to two
things that give him pride. The one for which he punched the air, was 'the
headteacher's profile is very noticeable and positive around the school'. The other was
about the comprehensiveness of his intake. He questioned the way some schools in
Birmingham have been encouraged into GNVQ courses to increase their outcome
statistics. Whatever the merits of using GNVQ equivalence as a way of getting a
school to a higher level of performance (and the case can be argued, given that the %
5A-C statistics does influence so drastically the way the school is seen, internally and
externally), the point here is that a strong, confident and articulate headteacher from
another authority strengthened this group, by contributing another perspective,
providing a further point of comparison, and offering highly valued advice and
reflection at key points in the history of the quadrant.
The involvement of the Birmingham head was particularly useful when it came to
peer review of leadership and school practices. The quadrant coordinator invited him
to talk through his experience of self evaluation and peer review, and this seemed to
work well in setting the tone for others to be reflective and self-critical:
Like most headteachers you busk it as you go along. We split up in
groups of three schools – and yes, it was slightly uneasy. I'm not keen on
the critical friend bit… how could you be on first name terms at one
moment, then asking about their 5 A-C performance the next? It’s too
cushy. But the three of us continue to meet on a half-termly basis. We
tour the school, and talk about issues, how we've dealt with them. We
learn from each other. One of the headteachers is outstanding on
vocational courses, though they only have 25% A-C. But for the 10 of
my kids that do construction at his school, I would put money that they
wouldn't have completed school this year. Two or three would have been
suspended, the others on very early block release… This afternoon they
are receiving awards for their work. Next year that's expanding.
Learning as much as possible from each other as school leaders necessarily involves
the ability to accept challenges, and this first step towards peer review of practice
went some way towards this.
Responding to special measures
A striking example of the impact of the collaboration in QC was its contribution to
one of the schools, C3, that had been placed in special measures following inspection.
One of the most straightforward (but not unremarkable) aspects to this was financial,
as emphasised by the headteacher of the school:
38
We wanted to make sure we passed on thanks from C3 to other schools
for the financial support for continuing collaboration - it is
extraordinary.
When it came down to more direct practical intervention, it was noticeable that it was
issues to do with teaching and learning that were at the centre of the activities that
took place. In particular, the Key Stage 3 strategy was a key area of focus for
developments in all of the quadrant schools, as they worked alongside their C3
colleagues to help it to emerge from its temporary period of crisis. For example:
Where we’ve had success is where we work one-on-one, one teacher
with another; for example head of humanities with head of history at C3.
The head of humanities has been working with KS3 foundation
consultant in the LEA. A success – TB asked if someone could help at
C3, and I asked our head of humanities. We wanted to help C3, and the
head of humanities E was really keen. We paid her supply from TSE
money and some time after school to do it, from TSE money (senior
teacher, C5).
I have been working with the head of history at C3. Previous head of
humanities had gone off with all the stuff. J had needed to work with
others in the department more experienced than him, all without any
schemes. I began by giving him all my old schemes of work. We worked
to develop resources. I taught him to write a scheme of work… I had a
nice letter from the headteacher after they came out of special
measures… We keep in touch, though I haven’t seen him for about eight
weeks. I think I gave him confidence. He was able to go back and tell
others that it’s the lessons that matter, not the coverage of material. After
all, there are only three years in KS3, and yet so many schools try to
teach from the Romans to the Cold War…. I focus on skills – such as
researching, providing evidence, etc – not the content knowledge (head
of humanities, C5)
It would be a mistake to imagine that support for a once-failing school had no benefits
to the other quadrant schools. In fact, despite its difficulties, C3 was itself well
advanced in some areas of the curriculum. For example, a head of humanities in one
of the schools described how she had benefited:
‘I met other humanities faculties and the Head of Humanities from C3
and picked up some excellent resources for Geography, History and RE
which I have subsequently shared with the Heads of Dept in my Faculty’
Similarly, the head of humanities at another school who had been working intensively
to support a teacher in C3 noted:
‘There is something in it for me too. The head of humanities at C3 is a
good geography specialist. He helped me with coursework. He was very
involved in getting them out of special measures, but I would meet him
in heads of humanities meetings, he would check that things were going
well with J. It’s given me confidence that Ofsted liked schemes of work.
Three years as head of humanities. In terms of resources, we copied all
our video resources from here to there. Reprographics service here is
39
excellent, so we doubled up our production and they get one of
everything that we do (head of humanities).
More generally, the belief in the reality of mutual benefit was a strength of the
quadrant. For example, the school coordinator from another relatively low attaining
school gave the following account of the collaboration:
I want some of the best practice from our school put forward. One of my
main things for that, is the experience of working with challenging kids.
There are talented teachers here. I would like to set up the opportunity
for teachers from other schools to follow teachers around, seeing what
the best teachers in the difficult schools do, and have to do. That would
be a great professional development opportunity. We have heads of
faculty here who run faculties as well as anyone else. Just how do you
put together a faculty and run it well? And there are NQTs here with
incredible natural skill in putting learning opportunities together (school
coordinator).
Maintaining the momentum
The decision by QC to appoint a coordinator at the level of deputy headteacher, rather
than an administrator, was strongly encouraged by the TSE central team. They saw
this as having the potential to build sustainability following the end of the separatelyfunded TSE project. The idea was supported by the headteachers, who agreed to the
use of some of their funds for this purpose.
Immediately prior to the coordinator taking up her post, the headteachers had a
discussion about the role. They emphasised the need for her to pay attention both to
strategy and to practical issues, such as arranging payments to staff for the additional
activities they undertook. One head explained:
We want her to be the living embodiment of enthusiastic TSE, the
champion of the collaborative; to spend time in schools, working out
what we do which might be useful for others; mapping strengths and
developmental needs across schools; starting to get subject level
collaboration, together with the self evaluation of faculty teams.
Whilst another commented:
First, we need to get the practicalities right, which will make a big
difference to my staff
The coordinator began work in September 2003, and quickly began to strike this
balance. She talked a lot about her ‘strategic role’, commenting, for example: ‘I was
appointed with the specific purpose of putting ideas into action’. She saw it as a role
that demanded considerable skill in negotiating with the group of headteachers, each
with the will to collaborate, but also with their own agendas and distinctive styles.
Our own observations revealed how the coordinator was involved in making
connections, such as when she took on the task of facilitating support for various
teachers at the struggling school. We also saw her looking to manage the links
between various initiatives that those in schools tended to experience as ‘innovation
40
overload’. At the same time, we also noticed that it was a role full of uncertainty, in
that it was about going beyond what already existed, in the name of sustainable and
positive change – and all this necessarily without a guiding map to follow.
Unsurprisingly, then, the coordinator was faced with many personal dilemmas in
respect to where she should place her effort. She seemed to sum this up when she
mused: ‘How do we set something up which is sustainable?’
As we consider the issue of how school-to-school collaboration can be encouraged,
the developing sense of agency around the coordinator post is worthy of particular
note. In the struggle for influence over LEA and secondary school policy (around
challenging issues such as inclusion, for example, but also in relation to softer issues,
such as collaboration itself, and presentation to external bodies such as DfES), having
some influence became important, as suggested by her report on a meeting:
I had a meeting yesterday with LEA officers yesterday on leading
practice, and how we make sure that everything we do is contributing to
impact on achievement. Because that’s what it’s about. It’s fine getting
together and getting to know each other but that’s not the point
(coordinator)
Many influences came together in shaping the work of the quadrant. Equally
importantly, the coordinator had to build and maintain her own credibility with the
headteachers. This she did through working with teachers in need of considerable
support, very much in the mode of an LEA adviser. In addition, the coordinator
recognised that, given the level of expectations, the perceptions of people other than
the leadership group were highly significant in terms of continuing development.
A newsletter was launched as a vehicle for influencing these perceptions, visible to
the many people outside and those within the quadrant who had little knowledge of
what was actually going on under the aegis of collaboration. The newsletter made
bold claims about the coherence and efficacy of the quadrant, consolidating the group
identity as an active and forward-looking quadrant; it also highlighted the many
activities in schools in which the quadrant was a key part.
School level coordination
An operations level group was instigated, involving deputy headteachers and the
quadrant coordinator. Its existence meant that the headteachers could safely delegate
the detail arrangements for quadrant activities, and where it has worked well, the staff
involved were able to draw more colleagues into the collaborative effort. Having
more than just the headteacher directly involved in directing the quadrant created
opportunities for conversations in each school about purposes and direction.
Nevertheless, one senior teacher was typical of the views of many others in the
schools when she emphasised the importance of the headteacher’s commitment to the
quadrant:
The headteacher said it was important, so it was. He was very keen and
made a big difference to the way it was considered in the school. We had
conversations every couple of weeks, talking about TSE among other
41
things. We tried to develop the big vision, the big picture’ (school
coordinator)
Each school designated a coordinator whose role was to ensure that activities about
teaching and learning across the quadrant were linked. It was these coordinators who
were in a position to know how the various quadrant events affected the staff in the
school, such as the joint training day held in February 2004:
The build up to it was great. The proforma on strengths and weaknesses
of each department was the best way for me to start engaging with the
heads of faculty who are not really keen on talking at that level of detail.
I as coordinator know who is strong and weak on what. Some more open
than others. I could then go back after that, and talk to those same
people, saying this is what we are planning to do…People were really up
for it, planning their presentations. There was some competitiveness,
presenting in front of peers – it was quite a powerful mechanism. They
did really well in presenting their ideas (school coordinator)
Coordination at the school level also involved working out how quadrant activities
could best be fitted in with the demands of other initiatives. For example,
coordinators made sure they were informed about which staff were out for various
KS3 training events, when planning TSE events. Where this was not done effectively,
the existence of two separate pots of money sometimes became problematic. As a
result, it was sometimes difficult for people in schools to tie initiatives together.
Some subject leaders spoke of how KS3 staff and those leading TSE could do much
more together. For example, just before the summer half term, 2004, a LEA KS3
coordinator went into one school with £4,000 to be spent on developing schemes of
work. It was seen as the right time to do that sort of work but, it was argued, it would
have been much more beneficial if it had been coordinated across the quadrant.
Subject level collaboration
During the first year with an overall coordinator in post, the quadrant grappled with a
fundamental strategic issue: how should directions for collaborative activity be
established? Should general themes be agreed and then imposed across the schools in
a whole quadrant approach, or should staff be encouraged to develop links around the
sharing of strengths and seeking assistance with particular areas for improvement?
The dilemmas associated with such decisions were reflected, for example, in the
following comment from a senior member of staff in one of the schools:
We had a joint inset day on questioning and engagement, with all the
materials from DfES to back that up. But staff were not engaged; they
didn’t feel that the day reflected their priorities. It was [just] one more
initiative to them.
The particular day went well in many respects, but there was a feeling of lack of
connection with the issues that really concerned the various staff groups. Indeed, six
months later, staff engagement in the quadrant was seen as a key issue. Consequently,
the coordinator and headteachers debated how a mechanism could be created that
would develop the engagement of more staff in systematic collaboration.
42
As a result, the plans for the next inset day were worked up by school co-ordinators
with the quadrant coordinator, in a series of meetings early in 2004. The day had no
agreed theme such as ‘assessment for learning’, even though this was something lots
of schools were thinking about at that time. The coordinator described the planning of
the day as starting with the issue of engagement, and moving from there towards
strategic sharing of good practice:
For the next inset day, I took a step back, asking the question, how do
we start it off? How do we get teachers engaged? We did do quite a lot
of managing - what people were allowed to present was managed first of
all through the coordinating group and then through the SLTs. The basis
of it was that they were to present areas of strength and weakness which
had come from an audit. And it should be a validated audit, with me or
the link adviser doing that for example. But I don’t think they did that in
practice. I think they presented work that was easy to present, and to
explain. And it was of variable quality. I took the ‘good’ out of ‘sharing
good practice’ and left it as sharing practice, because there is no point in
sharing practice which isn’t good.
As staff from different schools worked together there was evidence of the impact on
developments in relationships. It was noticeable, for example, that colleagues outside
an established hierarchy tended to have fewer problems, particularly when all
participants were seen to be contributing equally to the endeavour. However,
difficulties were more evident when those involved perceived there to be problems in
terms of fairness or lack of commitment. At such moments, the quadrant coordinator
was often seen to play a key role in mediating potential difficulties, and it was the
shared respect for a co-owned coordinator that seemed to facilitate continuing good
working relationships.
The decision to run a joint inset day meant the involvement of large numbers of staff
from the quadrant schools. Unfortunately, a school whose headteacher was very
committed to the quadrant had to withdraw from the inset day at short notice, as a
result of pressure from parents and LEA, due to the number of days that the school
had already been closed for building works. The successful containment of the
repercussions of this unfortunate circumstance was an additional challenge for the
quadrant and revealed a high level of maturity in the partnership.
Dealing with turbulence
The development of Quadrant C as a relatively autonomous structure raises
interesting questions about the role of LEA staff. As we have explained, the
headteachers were clearly enthusiastic about the practice of collaboration as it had
been presented and modelled by members of the central TSE team during the first
year of the project. However, they were also increasingly aware of the need to define
their own agendas. Up until September 2003, when the TSE project still had nine
months to run, it was evident that the TSE team took responsibility for setting the
agenda and running quadrant meetings.
As the quadrant became a more solid structure, LEA staff began to consider which
other developments and initiatives should be linked to it, and at one point they issued
an agenda for a meeting that outlined these. This seemed to raise alarm bells with
43
some headteachers, and phone calls amongst them ensued as they assessed the
quadrant feeling about their position. The next day, they informed the LEA
representative that it would be the quadrant that would draw up the meeting agenda,
that the meeting would be chaired by one of the headteachers, and that the LEA
representative would be seen as a participant and a partner. In making this stand, the
headteachers felt themselves to be exercising a powerful choice about their own
future, whilst certain LEA staff recognised that this development as being in line with
the strengthening and maturing of the quadrant.
Interestingly, these events prompted what seemed to us to be a significant strategic
discussion at the TSE steering group later that month:
The Steering Group noted, as a result, that quadrants were increasingly
becoming the vehicle for discussing and agreeing strategy and priorities.
This risked not only overloading quadrant meetings but also excluding
primary schools in activities. It was agreed, therefore, that the Steering
Group should discuss at its next meeting whether it would be possible to
establish a core set of priorities / themes for quadrants, shared by
schools, quadrants and the LEA’ (Sept 2003, steering group minutes)
It was clear, then, that the relationship between the quadrant and the LEA was
changing and, inevitably, this led to some uncertainties and tensions. At the same
time, within QC this period of turbulence led to more possibilities for negotiated
action, and as far as could be determined the maintenance of trust continued to be a
central concern amongst key stakeholders.
All of this echoes the evidence of other school improvement research that has drawn
attention to the way such periods of ‘turbulence’ arise as attempts are made to
change the status quo (Hopkins, Ainscow & West, 1994). Turbulence may take a
number of different forms, involving organisational, psychological, technical or
micro-political dimensions. At its heart, however, it is about the dissonance that
occurs as experienced practitioners struggle to make sense of new ideas and new
ways of working. It is interesting to note, too, that there is evidence to suggest that
without a period of turbulence, successful, long-lasting change is unlikely to occur.
In this sense turbulence can be seen as a useful indication that schools are, indeed, on
the move. The question is, of course, how can those involved in such processes be
supported in coping with such periods of difficulty?
Further difficulties occurred in March 2004 when in an attempt to address
geographical inconsistencies and so streamline some LEA initiatives, and to equalise
the number of schools in each quadrant, LEA staff made moves to try to adjust the
quadrant make-up. They did this by inviting some reconsideration of which schools
were in which quadrant. The headteachers in one of the quadrants were in favour of
such a move, seeing it as being in their interests. The reaction of the heads in
Quadrant C was swift. They went ‘en masse’ to an LEA strategy meeting and made it
very clear that they would reject any such proposal. In so doing, they were, we felt,
further reinforcing their identity as a group of schools and as power to be reckoned
with. The LEA accepted their position and, in so doing, found that this in itself
opened up new possibilities. So, for example, it was recognised that Quadrant C was
strong enough to assist the LEA in resolving extremely challenging problems, such as
the issue of excluded pupils. Indeed, gradually it was recognised that the quadrant
could become part of the solution to such areas of difficulty.
44
It is important to add that despite these difficulties, the adviser provide an important
link with the education department, working nominally one day per week on quadrant
issues, and exclusively in quadrant secondary schools. He attended all quadrant
meetings and it was noticeable that in such contexts he contributed an important
critical but supportive developmental edge to the consideration of issues.
Impact
Our account of Quadrant C makes it possible to approach the question of
effectiveness through the perspective of process. Specifically, our evidence suggests
that what happened led to a different kind of talk between schools and with LEA
staff. As a result, it was now unremarkable to talk together about school
improvement, which in itself was seen as a significant change. There was also a
strong sense of common purpose and capability in the conversations that took place
within the quadrant, and a much greater awareness of the alternative resources and
places to turn when things go wrong in school. And all of this was set in a context of
less defensiveness between the schools.
We also saw how shared inset events provided opportunities to meet teachers from
other schools that were valued by many teachers. As one teacher commented, ‘This
was better than school INSET, because it’s good to get out of the comfort zone, the
limited way of seeing things in your own school.’ Younger teachers in particular
talked like this, noting that they had never experienced events where staff were so
explicitly (and in many cases literally) putting things on the table for others to borrow
and make use of.
In terms of the impact on student achievement, Table 3 provides a summary of the
changes that occurred. Note that the quadrant average relates to the total exam cohort
across the quadrant.
school
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
quadrant
2001
2002
2003
2004
5+
no
5+
no
5+
no
5+
no
A*-C pass A*-C pass A*-C pass A*-C pass
34%
66%
10%
32%
10%
33%
2%
0%
21%
3%
17%
8.3%
35%
67%
11%
19%
18%
33%
1%
1%
12%
0%
16%
5.7%
34%
70%
13%
25%
18%
34%
3%
4%
10%
14%
18%
9.2%
38%
67%
27%
24%
17%
36%
0%
2%
19%
6%
14%
8.0%
Table 3: GCSE results for Quadrant C schools, 2001-2004
45
% 5+ A-C GCSE, Quad C
80%
%
70%
60%
C1
50%
C2
40%
C3
30%
C4
20%
C5
10%
0%
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
These data suggest that attainment in relation to national targets in the schools in
Quadrant C increased over the last three years, quite steadily in three of them, but that
no overall change occurred in relation to the number of pupils leaving with no
qualifications.
In looking for the cause of these changes, it would be simplistic to ascribe too much
direct influence to a school’s participation in the quadrant. In the case of school C3,
for example, where we saw dramatic improvements in examination results (i.e. a rise
in GCSE grades A* to C from 13% to 27 % in a single year), there was a whole set of
strategies which could have influenced students’ attitudes and confidence directly.
Nevertheless, there was strong evidence of a new ethos of personalised teaching and
coaching across the schools in the quadrant. For example:
We collated data on the pupils, how they did in individual subjects to
identify which areas we needed to work on them with, areas where they
needed extra help. We set up a lot of after-school classes when the
teachers would offer individual teaching and work on those areas. We
also had two residential camps… in year 10 and again in year 11. We
concentrated on their subjects where they needed help" (headteacher)
Looking to the future
In this account of Quadrant C we have focused specifically on the link from strategy
to practice afforded by the appointment of a quadrant coordinator; the involvement of
school coordinators in making collaborative projects real in schools; and the raising of
the profile of the initiative through a series of big events and quality newsletters. We
have also pointed to certain important outcomes, not least in respect to the way
collaboration was used to support a school in special measures. In addition, we have
illustrated how the work of the quadrant created new ways for LEA staff to work with
schools, although, as we saw, the changes that occurred created periods of tension.
Our analysis leaves us feeling confident that the depth of collaboration that has been
achieved will ensure that this work continues at least for the foreseeable future. In
46
that respect the recent success of the quadrant’s bid for Leading Edge status will be
helpful in providing further resources to maintain momentum.
47
7. Barriers to collaboration: an account of Quadrant D
The account of Quadrant D provides further examples of promising collaborative
activities, particularly in relation to the way they can be used as mechanisms for
making better use of available resources. However, the account also reveals how
existing circumstances can act as barriers to the development of such arrangements.
In that sense, it draws our attention to some potentially powerful lessons that have
implications for wider policy development.
The quadrant had five schools as members, with some input from a Birmingham LEA
officer initially, rather than a Birmingham school. One of the schools was a CTC and
has become an academy. Early on the quadrant was described to us by one LEA
officer as being ‘dissonant’, with ‘lots of egos and baggage’. Certainly one of the
schools, which was itself seen as being very successful in improving achievement
amongst learners from disadvantaged backgrounds, remained reluctant to participate,
although the head did increasingly attend quadrant coordinating meetings.
Most of the work of the quadrant involved developing and sharing subject specific
resources of various kinds, and coordinating the introduction of relevant external
initiatives.
Coordination
The style of working that developed in Quadrant D was described as being ‘flexible
collaboration based on need’ (minutes of quadrant meeting, 22/04/04). As it
developed, the focus was on particular initiatives, such as the 14 – 19 curriculum, and
the production of resources for teaching and learning.
As we have explained, collaboration was to a large extent imposed on the schools in
Nottingham, and in QD a range of attitudes was evident from the outset. Certainly not
all staff in the quadrant felt that TSE was a good idea, with some questioning, in
particular, the amount of funding that went to the private partner.
During the first year, the idea of a quadrant coordinator was not seen as a priority. At
that stage it was felt that a research officer was more significant – research would, it
was argued, make it possible to evaluate the various initiatives and help to inform a
coordinated strategy in schools, rather than a set of individual projects. Subsequently,
however, the headteachers decided to appoint a coordinator to help ensure that all the
practical steps necessary for making progress together were taken.
As with QC, the appointment of a coordinator at the level of deputy headteacher, was
encouraged by the central TSE team. This appointment created the possibility of a
transition from an initiative that some perceived as externally imposed, towards one
that had the active commitment of all the headteachers, because they were able to
shape and determine priorities and activities.
The coordinator of the quadrant had two main roles in the initial period: implementing
collaborative plans at an increased rate, and finding a way of rationalising and
connecting apparently separate initiatives. The key was his position at the centre of
the group, where the headteachers (in meetings, for example) seemed to be preoccupied mainly with their individual contributions and requirements.
48
The first meeting of the strategy group after the appointment of the coordinator was
something like a re-launch of the quadrant after a period of relative stagnation.
Discussions were characterized by one of those present as ‘robust debate’ – a crucial
development from a situation of partial disengagement. Prior to and following this
meeting, the coordinator worked hard to make the commitment of all headteachers
concrete by meeting with them one-to-one, discussing their personal ideas, and
establishing some starting points which would receive unanimous support. An initial
stage involved the coordinator as representative of the quadrant:
‘I’m making myself the focus for their loyalty. I’m the person who will
be banging on the door complaining if they don’t do what they said they
would. I’m encouraging them to take part.
The twist was, of course, that this person ‘banging on the door’ and appealing to the
commitment made in the minutes of meetings was employed by those whose door he
was banging on. The coordinator recognised that if relevant and useful activities did
not result from their collaboration, one or other of the headteachers would begin to
withdraw from the project. He commented:
‘If he doesn’t think we’re getting on with things, he’ll go on with his own’.
In this way, the appointment of a coordinator had the potential to lift the quadrant into
greater levels of activity, by its own bootstraps as it were. This seemed to be the
potential power of the appointment. On the other hand, we would argue that it takes a
particular type of person to make it work; one who would able to withstand the
uncertainty of an initially ill-defined role, and who was persistent enough in the face
of competing priorities to persuade headteachers to increase their commitment to
collaboration. In that sense, the coordinator must see beyond what already exists, and
behave as if such development is a given.
In order to sustain this role, therefore, the person acting as coordinator for QD had to
build and maintain credibility with headteachers. This the coordinator attempted to do
in a variety of ways: through the careful preparation and chairing of quadrant strategy
meetings; through working directly with students on specific projects; through
facilitating teams of teachers working across schools on particular curriculum
initiatives, to share and create resources for development; and by making contacts
with agencies beyond the quadrant in a way that demonstrably created more resources
for some or all of the schools. For example, he organised external inputs for an
enterprise week held in school D4 and took responsibility when the people running
one of the sessions withdrew at the last minute.
Coordinating the sharing of resources
Facilitating the sharing of resources was a practical starting point for the quadrant.
Various groups shared resources in the first year of the initiative, notably including
the librarians. There was also an ICT learning focus group, involving coordinators
from each school. They planned a day away from school, focusing on new models of
elearning, supported by the KS4 consultant from the LEA.
Once appointed, the coordinator promoted an increase in the number of groups
sharing resources, and this led to the development of a GCSE English revision
booklet, which was very well accepted in the quadrant. The reaction of students to
49
this booklet was also positive, suggesting that it had an impact on their revision
behaviour. As a consequence, a demand was created for a KS3 revision guide, and for
developing a teaching pack with the languages group, including the production of
CDs with audio files recorded by native speakers.
There were also direct examples of sharing resources between the schools. For
example, in the context of problems in appointing qualified male PE teachers, the
head of D3 alerted the other schools that he had received a number of strong
applications. It occurred to us that his kind of sharing has low cost but is of benefit
within a network, cementing relationships and building expectations.
The issue of linking into networks is now crucial to the work of most schools,
especially as there are increasingly necessary connections to be made to agencies
beyond the school in order to broaden the curriculum. Successful schools have, of
course, always tapped into those with access to money and other kinds of resources.
Up to now, it has been very difficult for less successful schools to have time to make
arrangements, and to know that they will be successful.
In this respect, there was evidence that communication between schools and LEA
staff was made more straightforward as a result of the quadrant structure. So, for
example, there was less distance and less misunderstanding when advisers were able
to respond directly to key staff at quadrant meetings. That was partly in terms of
information, such as news about the launch of an alternative curriculum directory, but
also it concerned the way resources were distribution from the LEA to the schools.
For example:
Headteacher: This alternative placement is something very different
from what we were talking about 18 months ago. At those costings I
can’t see which schools will take up places. Permanent exclusion is a
similar cost to these. We have some similar alternatives with very much
smaller cost. I already have eight students from year 10 off site and
working through the holidays at £2100 per year.
LEA 14-19 adviser: The LEA won’t have a pot of money long-term for
this.
Headteacher: But could the quadrant make a bid to Learning and Skills
Council?
LEA 14-19 adviser: That’s what we were envisaging
Headteacher: I like the philosophy of this development, the element of
community ownership. But financially….
In this way, possibilities for negotiated and collective action emerged (in this case, a
bid to LSC), without the time-wasting process of checking for funding that would not
be forthcoming locally. Of course, a relationship of trust between LEA advisers and
headteachers is essential for such straightforward discussion. Once again, in this
quadrant, the link adviser in particular proved to an important connection to the wider
LEA.
The work of an enterprise development manager, one of four in the city, provided
further evidence of how the quadrant structure facilitated the more effective use of
50
resources. She focused her efforts on these schools, though also connected to work
going on in the other quadrants. The three foci of the initiative were employability,
skills shortages and enterprise. It appeared that a lot of work was being done on
linking between schools and employment, and on being fit and healthy for school and
work. Part of her job, she explained, was to find alternative sources of funding to
make this sustainable. From the project management point of view, she felt that it was
very beneficial to have an established group of schools to relate to, and that Quadrant
D provided a test-bed prior to wider implementation.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, not all headteachers had wanted to invest in such initiatives.
Consequently, she had found it necessary to be proactive and to work with whoever
was round the table. Here the presence of the QD coordinator had facilitated a more
systematic connection through going to the meetings of the enterprise development
group, reinforcing this as a growing theme for quadrant activities.
Institutional learning
The appointment of a research assistant in March 2004 was intended to increase
learning about the effectiveness of quadrant initiatives. Negotiating the role and
purpose of the research assistant in practice took time. At a quadrant strategy meeting
in May 2004, the research assistant was part of a discussion that helped to define the
purpose. It became clear that this did not include the evaluation of collaboration, but
would be focused firstly on mapping the curriculum in each school, and providing
another basis for comparison and further curriculum development.
Several further specific foci for research were discussed, including that of
coursework, perceived to present issues in all schools and yet an activity that few
schools had studied in order to see how to make it more manageable. Again, there
was the possibility of useful comparison by learning about the approaches taken in
individual schools. At the meeting, headteachers suggested that possible outcomes of
such research could be ways of helping students to hand in their coursework on time.
As a mark of increased ownership of the project by the headteachers, their acceptance
of research that would produce somewhat sensitive data on schools was notable.
Since the schools retained a sense of control, they felt little sense of risk in agreeing
to this way of opening up issues which had not been on the agenda before. This
suggests that a research process that is under the control of a group of schools could
be a valuable way of creating new paths for collaboration.
Making sense of the barriers
Quadrant D is, we believe, very important to our understanding of what is involved in
trying to strengthen collaboration as a strategy for school improvement in urban
contexts, such as Nottingham. This being the case, we feel that it would be foolish to
gloss over the nature of the difficulties that occurred. As we have seen, there were
some interesting and worthwhile activities within the quadrant. At the same time, it is
clear that the level of collaboration remained relatively shallow, with limited evidence
of serious commitment to make the TSE strategy work in this group of schools.
It reflecting on the situation, two of the heads argued that the origins of the problem
lay in the way that TSE was set up. In particular, they argued that it was imposed
without reference to existing collaborative networks that existed. Early on in the
51
initiative we had picked up similar views from staff around the city who felt that the
collaborative patterns that had previously existed within Excellence in Cities should
have been used as the starting point for TSE. Later on, however, such arguments
were rarely made in our discussions in schools, suggesting, perhaps, that those
involved had seen evidence that the quadrant structures were having an impact.
Nevertheless, certain Heads in QD remained committed to the view that it was
imposition that had created the barriers.
One of the heads who felt that TSE had been ‘forced’ on them, argued that that it had
been difficult to get his colleagues to come together in order to decide how TSE
would be taken forward in their quadrant. He commented that in the early days it felt
like ‘walking through treacle’. Part of the problem, he suggested, was that right from
the start people on the ground had not really understood the rationale of the initiative.
Expectations were raised, he recalled, at the big inaugural meeting of all schools but
‘there should have been a road map’.
This same head explained that TSE had never been a priority in his school, not least
because they belonged to a networked learning community. In addition his school had
developed a close partnership with another school within the quadrant to address
common challenges related to the provision of an alternative curriculum for disruptive
students. His argument was that, unlike TSE, this initiative was addressing ‘real
problems’. Perhaps significantly, he added that the heads of the two schools involved
had a well established friendship.
Reflecting further on the nature of the difficulties in QD, this head explained that one
of the schools had been in special measures, which meant that the staff there were
under too much pressure to attend planning meetings. Of course, it is interesting to
compare this with what happened in other quadrants, where, as we have seen, schools
in crisis seemed to act as catalysts for action. This same head mentioned that one
school had simply refused to join in. He commented, ‘We never knew where we
stood with them’. Other difficulties mentioned included, the issue of school
timetables that did not match and negative reactions to the idea that teachers could be
paid for attending out of school meetings
As we have noted, some heads in QD felt that their difficulties were mainly to do with
the unwillingness of one head to join in. In fairness, during the early period of TSE
this particular head had been working away from the LEA. Nevertheless, his school’s
lack of involvement was a serious weakness, not least because of its record of
improving the achievement of young people from relatively poor backgrounds (a rise
from 13% to over 60% of students getting five or more A* to C grades, over a twelve
year period).
The head of that school was himself very open about his school’s lack of involvement.
He remembers how his staff had been turned off at the first meeting of TSE, which
had involved all the staff in the schools, commenting: ‘The day was a disaster for
them’.
Reflecting on all of this, he explained:
52
‘Imposing yet another network on us was impossible. We took great
offence. It’s never worked for us. We have our own networks’.
In fact, this particular school has a strong record for cooperating with other schools. It
is a Leading Edge school; it works with other schools in what is called the ‘North
Nottingham School Improvement Partnership’, another initiative funded by the DfES;
it is a lead school for the Specialist Schools Trust; and is involved in an EAZ with six
local primary schools.
Impact
The pattern of examination results for the schools in Quadrant D are summarised in
the following diagrams:
school
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
Quadrant
2001
2002
2003
2004
5+
No
5+
No
5+
no
5+
no
A*-C pass A*-C pass A*-C pass A*-C pass
52%
24%
49%
10%
39%
37%
7%
11%
2%
10%
3%
6.4%
55%
37%
57%
8%
27%
39%
5%
10%
2%
13%
9%
7.3%
60%
29%
55%
17%
18%
36%
4%
4%
0%
19%
7%
5.4%
51%
39%
65%
23%
25%
41%
6%
5%
3%
21%
9%
7.9%
Table 4: GCSE results for Quadrant D schools, 2001-2004
% 5+ A-C GCSE, Quad D
70%
60%
D1
%
50%
D2
40%
D3
30%
D4
20%
D5
10%
0%
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
Whilst not forgetting the limitations of these data referred to earlier, they do suggest
that attainment in relation to national targets in Quadrant D increased over the last
three years, but not in a consistent way across schools. It should also be noted that no
overall change occurred in relation to the number of pupils leaving with no
qualifications.
53
As we have shown, interesting collaborative developments did occur in this quadrant,
although progress was hampered by the mixed levels of commitment to the TSE
strategy amongst the headteachers. Placed alongside the accounts in the earlier
chapters, this reinforces the idea that progress towards effective inter-dependent ways
of working require the commitment of key stakeholders. It also draws attention to the
fact that self-interest is, in practice, a predictable and important component of interdependency. Johnson and Johnson (1992), for example, suggest that individuals
become inter-dependent when ‘an event that affects one member affects them all’.
This means that participants need first to understand, and then to experience, the
tangible benefits of inter-dependent working arrangements.
This being the case, we argue that levers will need to be found that will be powerful in
encouraging the development of inter-dependence amongst groups of schools. Senge
(1989) sees ‘levers’ as actions that can be taken in order to change the behaviour of an
organisation and those individuals within it. He goes on to argue that those who wish
to encourage change within an organisation must be smart in determining where the
high leverage lies. Too often, he suggests, approaches used to bring about large-scale
changes in organisations are ‘low leverage’.
If the very promising practices that have been developed as a result of TSE in
Nottingham are to be further strengthened and, indeed, replicated elsewhere, we will
need to identify and pay attention in those high leverage factors that can help to ease
education communities in a more collaborative direction.
54
8. Drawing out the lessons
The four quadrant accounts demonstrate how the emphasis on schools working
together that was stimulated by TSE led to some serious efforts and, at times, creative
ways of using educational resources in order to improve effectiveness across the
education system. As shown, these efforts led to significant changes in attitude and
expectations amongst staff in many of the schools, and this is reflected up to a point in
the survey carried out (Appendix B). The accounts have illuminated ways in which
these processes of change have been associated with improvements in attainment, as
measured by examination results. Table 5 summarises attainment based on all the
pupils in the cohort for each year from 2001 to 2004, across each of the quadrants.
Year
Quadrant A
Quadrant B
Quadrant C
Quadrant D
2001
32%
43%
33%
37%
2002
28%
31%
33%
39%
2003
37%
41%
34%
36%
2004
39%
38%
36%
41%
Table 5: GCSE results across quadrants, 2001-2004
% 5A-C at GCSE by quadrant
45
%
40
QA
35
QB
30
QC
QD
25
20
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
Again, no allowance for changing cohorts is made in this analysis, since value-added
data is not available for the period concerned. Nevertheless, the data show how
attainment in relation to national targets increased between 2002 and 2004 in all four
quadrants. The graph is also a reminder that variation from one year to the next must
be treated cautiously, because the following year can yield changes in the opposite
direction. Understanding these changes would require analysis at the level of
individual pupils and their attainment trajectories over time, something that was
beyond the scope of this study.
At KS3, a similar pattern in terms of average pupil score (APS) was evident in terms
of increasing attainment in all four quadrants. However, it is not the case that those
quadrants with the highest attainment in relation to GCSE targets achieved most
highly in relation to average points score at KS3. In a situation of such change, it is
likely that these KS3 figures will contribute to the pattern of GCSE results in two
55
years time, but they will not determine these results, any more than the 2002 figures
determined the 2004 GCSE results. Schools in the various quadrants continue to
make a difference in the two years between KS3 and GCSE, in terms of hitting
targets.
points score
APS at KS3 by quadrant
32.5
32.0
31.5
31.0
30.5
30.0
29.5
29.0
28.5
QA
QB
QC
QD
2002
2003
2004
Year
A significant but easily overlooked part of the overall picture is the differences in the
size of exam cohorts, both between schools and over time. The following graph
summarises the difference and variation by quadrant. The data for KS3 cohorts is
very similar.
size of GCSE cohort by quadrant
no. of pupils
1000
800
QA
600
QB
400
QC
QD
200
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
The graph shows that Quadrants A and C have remained at roughly the same size in
terms of exam cohorts, whilst Quadrant D has increased significantly, currently
having more than twice the pupils in exam cohorts than Quadrant B, reflecting
processes of closing, amalgamating and reopening schools that occurred in those two
quadrants.
The processes described in the quadrant accounts reflect the ‘twin-track’ approach set
out in the first year of TSE and, as such, some activities have had a direct effect on
target attainment statistics, whilst others have aimed at the development of capacity in
the longer term. Patterns of activity and levels of commitment have varied
56
considerably across the four quadrants and, perhaps unsurprisingly, therefore, the
nature of the impact is uneven across the schools.
All of this suggests that the important lessons can be learnt from this experience that
could provide the basis of similar initiatives in other contexts where levels of student
achievement remain unsatisfactory. The lessons that can be drawn also have
implications for the further strengthening of developments within Nottingham.
With these aspirations in mind, in this chapter we compare and contrast the four
accounts in order to determine what we can learn from them.
The strategy
It was fascinating to hear remarkably different descriptions as to how TSE came about
and, indeed, regarding whose idea it was in the first place. This reminded us of the
social complexity of this ambitious project and the challenges it presented to those
who took on leadership roles.
As we have seen, the strategy was broadly welcomed by schools and most of the key
stakeholders had some say in its detailed design. At the same time, a small minority of
significant players remained convinced that they had been coerced into participation.
On the positive side, the commitment to involving all secondary schools kick-started
the process of collaboration and put pressure on stakeholders to work together. The
project brought in substantial additional resources, including the strategic expertise of
the private partner and a degree of encouragement and inspiration from Birmingham
LEA, certainly in the early stages. On the less positive side, the feeling of coercion
that did exist created a relatively negative reaction from a small group of influential
headteachers.
Collaboration was an element written into the specification of the TSE project, and
the collaborative design process which took shape following the commencement of
the project resulted in an initial structure and set of conditions which were replicated
across the four newly created quadrants. Each quadrant was provided with the same
inputs at the start, in terms of funding, and support from LEA, private partner and
Birmingham LEA staff. Each quadrant held an initial meeting in September 2002, for
example, with the same basic agenda and representatives of schools, LEA and other
stakeholders.
From this common starting point, however, our four accounts show how the quadrants
quickly developed in very different ways, making it possible to approach the question
of differences in effectiveness through the perspective of process. We have seen what
changed in the quadrants, and we can assess how these features of change connect
with processes that people acknowledge to have been important. We can see too how,
as a group of schools, each quadrant reached a different point as a result of their
working together over two years.
In what follows, key aspects of these processes are compared and contrasted in the
search to understand the impact of TSE and collaboration in Nottingham. This
analysis is structured in relation to five propositions that emerged from our analysis of
the data collected. These are as follows:

Collaboration has promoted wider ownership of the improvement agenda;
57

Collaboration has contributed to a wide range of changes in practice; however,

Collaboration does not in itself generate a clear picture of good practice that
teachers can work with;

Collaboration does not in itself create sufficient challenge for improvement;
but

Collaboration helps to ensure that tensions created by improvement initiatives
are held in balance
For the sake of clarity, and before supporting these propositions with evidence, we
expand on the story they tell in relation to collaboration for school improvement.
Firstly, then, collaboration has been part of a process whereby more individual
schools and more groups of schools have felt a stake in the process of school
improvement. As a result, they have found themselves able to act together in various
combinations to tackle complex and deep-rooted problems in schools.
Secondly, the accounts reveal how collaborating schools have contributed to a wide
range of improvements, whether in terms of resources for teaching and learning, the
provision and preparation of teachers and other staff, the development of alternative
curricula and activities, and the measures used to determine successful teaching.
However, thirdly, our evidence indicates that collaboration alone own does not
provide the models for development, and the accounts show that when groups of
schools are planning new developments, the stimulus of materials from other sources
(such as the KS3 strategy and others) is extremely important. A lot of collaborative
work has gone on in connection with the themes (such as questioning, and alternative
KS4 opportunities) that have been promoted through various national strategies – and,
of course, this has contributed to the successful implementation of those strategies.
In addition, and fourthly, there is an ongoing issue in relation to sources of challenge.
It proved difficult for collaborating headteachers, working hard to share resources and
build relationships, to address the pressing needs either of individual schools or within
the system, without the assistance of outsiders to the group. The accounts demonstrate
how important the role of LEA staff can be in this regard.
Finally, though, what collaboration has done is to help reduce the polarization of the
education system, to the particular benefit of those pupils who are on the edges of the
system and performing relatively poorly. Since collaboration is about active
involvement of staff from different schools, there is a constant interaction at a level
which is close to practice and to the context that schools are working in every day.
Staff see and understand each others’ issues much more clearly, and are able to
contribute to resolving the tensions that necessarily arise with the implementation of
improvement plans.
We will now further develop our argument in relation to these five statements. In
doing so, we highlight the other influences on schools that have contributed to
improvements.
58
Wider ownership of the improvement agenda
Reflecting on the impact of TSE, the LEA Director emphasised the importance of
developing ownership of the challenge to improve:
Because the TSE project has primarily been about raising standards
above floor targets it has helped develop the sense that we're all in the
job together and co-own the school improvement agenda. We're
conscious that grouping schools together in the quadrants has given
schools the confidence and the forum to speak together about issues that
are causing them concern - an example would be admissions
arrangements. The quadrant structure and the 'peer' support that it has
nurtured has enabled us to say to weaker schools that they should be
seeking solutions to problems within their own capacity / quadrant rather
than always relying on the LEA (Director of Education, 1st July 2004)
By emphasising ownership by different partners, the director was drawing attention to
the new possibilities that exist in an LEA where there are strong partnerships between
schools. New forms of support are created, and new conversations become possible
about responsibility for improvement.
Prior to TSE, Nottingham schools had been working together to varying degrees and,
of course, with LEA staff, through initiatives such as the Excellence in Cities
programme. Indeed, many people involved in EiC activities were keen to tell us the
history of these previous arrangements and how they had made important
contributions, in relation to provision for gifted and talented pupils in some subject
areas, for example. As we have seen, TSE as a design did not build directly on this
existing work, a feature which in itself created a sense of dislocation and unnecessary
waste for some teachers and headteachers.
Many people drew comparisons between collaboration through Excellence in Cities
and the quadrants, seeing the latter as reaching deeper into the management and
leadership of the schools and LEA. From the perspective of one senior LEA officer,
EiC was a necessary but not sufficient element in bringing about change in ownership
of the improvement agenda:
We couldn’t have got where we are without EiC, but EiC alone couldn’t
have done it.
Another feature of that earlier period, it seems, was that neither the LEA, nor many of
the secondary schools, were prepared really to own the central issue of school
improvement, in the sense of taking on the challenge to do something about it. In this
respect, the quadrant accounts describe a movement away from a relatively stuck
culture towards a growing recognition that many problems are not entirely beyond the
influence of schools and groups of schools working together. This shift has been
associated with a much-improved relationship between the LEA and schools.
During the early phase of TSE, the private partner played an important role in the
dynamics of these changes. Our analysis suggests that, to an extent and for a limited
period of time, Mouchel took some ownership of the school improvement issue. This
is important to stress, since some in the LEA, including certain headteachers, have
argued that they could have developed the strategy without outside involvement if the
59
available finance had been made available to them. We consider that the history of
the LEA over recent years provides little support for such an assertion. Of course
there have always been strong schools in the city, and some schools improving
dramatically without TSE, but there was little evidence that efforts were being made
to use these strengths to bring about system-wide improvement. Indeed, the evidence
of what happened prior to TSE was that the strong were getting stronger, whilst the
lower performing schools were falling behind at an alarming rate. In addition, there
was evidence that the education department had insufficient capacity to intervene
effectively in this deteriorating context.
Part of the wider national context at the time that TSE was being introduced was that
of so-called ‘failing’ authorities being taken over by private companies at huge
expense. For example, in July 2001 DfES had brought in Serco to run education in
Bradford, with a ten-year contract worth £360 million. Comparisons of cost
effectiveness are beyond the scope of this evaluation, and of course Nottingham was
never seen as a failing LEA, but it is worth noting that in raw expenditure terms, the
TSE intervention in Nottingham cost a relatively modest £700,000 in addition to the
LIG funding available to other disadvantaged areas of the country.
As we have seen, the success of the first phase of TSE rested on the way the TSE core
team, comprising an LEA officer and member of the Mouchel staff, was able to
cooperate effectively with key stakeholders in developing and implementing a
coherent plan. We learned from many sources how the individuals concerned gained
a high profile in the authority, earning the respect of senior LEA staff and elected
members on the one hand, and most of the headteachers on the other. They were able
to work in partnership with both groups in moving towards a more open relationship.
At that time, the room for discussion created by this intervention was essential in
bringing about ‘the main change… to a plan and a project culture which posed the
question, how will we achieve the floor targets…’ (LEA officer).
The reactions of LEA staff to the changes that have occurred have been somewhat
mixed, with a few arguing that the improvements that have occurred are more to do
with their own interventions, rather than the new relationships between the schools.
In the main, however, the LEA has itself changed gradually in response to the new
collaborative structures brought about through TSE. We notice, for example, that
many senior staff in schools report that dialogue and joint problem-solving are now
substantially more significant features of the relationship between LEA officers and
schools. This process is reflected in the new perspectives of LEA officers. For
example, one expressed satisfaction with
… strong quadrants, if there really is co-ownership of the school
improvement agenda… All it does is to mean you need better arguments
for what you want to do. And you get the energy of these headteachers,
focused on school improvement. That’s wonderful (LEA officer).
The rationale behind TSE was that high profile activity and additional resources can
encourage individual and collaborating schools to be more responsive to opportunities
to raise attainment. In the longer term, the intention is that groups of schools with
increased autonomy will take greater ownership of the school improvement process,
leading to more sustainable improvements in provision for pupil learning at the
secondary phase. There is evidence of this ownership too in the changing relationship
60
between headteachers and LEA in several specific instances, as recorded in the
accounts. For example:
There has been an agreement in principle to schools taking over and
above their admissions limit, in order to deal with the issue of pupils
being moved between schools that don’t have the capacity to deal with
them. What I have done, on the back of this discussion, is to go back to
QC and say ‘OK, if you’re that strong, can you work together to sort out
this issue of inclusion?’ They all said yes, in principle, they would
accept over the admissions limit (LEA officer)
This idea of accepting over the limit has now been approved in principal
by headteachers across the city. I spoke with two LEA officers at the
meeting where it was approved, to say, this is not something I’m
proposing for my school’s benefit, but to tackle a problem which is more
widespread than that (headteacher).
Many people spoke of a major change in culture in the leadership of education in the
LEA and schools. One informed outsider and observer of the changes in the LEA and
schools remarked:
Nottingham is a different place from when I came… there is a ‘can-do’
attitude’
In his opinion, the preparatory work that went on with the heads and the residential
events to plan the strategy should all be seen as part of the explanation for the change
that has occurred. This change in culture is evident, for example, in the way
headteachers and LEA staff now communicate:
Relationships with heads are good. They understand the shared problem
(though they blame..). Humour is a big feature of work with heads, and
we play on that. For example, in relation to exclusion, one headteacher
made the suggestion: ‘Let’s talk about BOGOF – buy-one-get-one-free –
if you exclude one, you must take another’ (LEA officer)
A recently-appointed headteacher saw the network of headteachers in relation to the
LEA as a significant benefit of the quadrant structure.
Some LEA officers in particular have helped to make a big difference –
being genuine about welcoming dialogue, and more ‘open’ to thinking
things through with headteachers than some people in LEAs are.
Originally, the agenda and business of headteachers’ meetings was set
by the LEA and there was no input from headteachers on a lot of the
LEA’s working groups. But when over half the schools are in
challenging circumstances then something must be going wrong…
Lately, the LEA have been setting up working groups which include
headteachers, and thinking strategicially and radically. For some of the
headteachers who have been fighting individually for a long time, this
process of getting together and looking to be listened to and more
supported by the LEA has created a much more open feel to the city, and
I can feel this change (headteacher).
61
Changes in practice
The processes described in the accounts have impacts which range between the direct
and short term, to the indirect and longer term. It was noted earlier that a version of
this distinction between short term impact and longer term sustainability was written
into the original TSE specification, with the two pronged strategy aimed at raising
achievement by any means possible as quickly as could be done. Mapping the key
processes identified through the accounts in this way, suggests a useful shorthand for
understanding the nature of the different changes that took place and the timescale for
their impact:
DIRECT IMPACT --------------------------------------------- LONGER TERM IMPACT
Movement of human resources (shared services, etc)
Joint advertisements/appointments
Staff development activities
Widening opportunities for pupils
Drawing new resources
Mutual challenge
Re-defining quality
Sharing responsibility
Those activities with a more direct and immediate impact on achievement tended to
be relatively easy to implement; for example, the work on music and English in
Quadrant A; on creative arts in B; on several subjects in C; and on vocational
education in D, all fall into this category.
However, the accounts also demonstrate how collaboration can help to foster more
complex initiatives that may well contribute to sustainable improvements. By their
nature, these activities involve processes which take longer to evolve, not least
because they require the negotiation of common priorities and shared values. In terms
of the typology we outlined in chapter 3, they represent moves towards more collegial
relationships. Evidence of such developments are seen in three of the quadrants. In
Quadrant A, for example, recent debates amongst headteachers have focused on the
question, ‘What are our values?’ and on finding ways of making better use of
difference to stimulate creativity and action; in B, working practices have started to
reshape parental choices around the schools involved; and in C, the issue of priorities
for development has been comprehensively addressed in the fine targeting of the
Leading Edge plan to which the schools are now working. Meanwhile, despite the
difficulties that have been experienced, schools in D are now looking to other
collaborative groups as much as to the quadrant for such long term effects.
Defining good practice
62
The records of meetings and discussions in the quadrants shows that the direction of
changes in the practice of teaching and learning comes not just from the group, but
from initiatives and other resources that the group has able to access. Examples from
all four quadrant accounts bear this out.
In Quadrant A, advances in English drew on the expertise of an individual teacher,
and work with KS3 consultants. In B, improvement in creative arts drew on expertise
external to the schools. In C, attempts to share good practice from within departments
were seen as relatively unsuccessful, compared with the coordinated access to
materials from other sources. In D, moves towards best practice in vocational
education again drew on the advice of staff external to schools.
The implementation of the national KS3 strategy in Nottingham coincided with the
development of the TSE. The officer in charge encouraged the quadrants to use the
strategy as a tool, inviting them to take advantage of the subject leader training and
middle management programmes. Interestingly, the 2004 figures make Nottingham
the most improved LEA in the country at KS3. For the KS3 strategy manager, this is
the result of convincing teachers that the strategy is beneficial, using teams of
consultants to make it work on the ground:
Improving the quality of teaching and learning is now seen as KS3
business. Staff are now talking about starters and plenaries.
Three quadrants made KS3 activities a focus for some of their collaborative effort. In
QA, the English consultant worked mainly in KS4 herself, but in close contact with
KS3 consultants. The quadrant also did the subject leader training, as did QD. QC set
up meetings to work together, at one point seeking to have all five schools on the
same training programme. By and large, the evidence was that collaborative training
activities worked well. For example:
We ran subject leader training again last night, and there is
having people from different schools interacting… then
resources. You name it, I’ve got a module on it. We help
prioritise, and build their plans into the planning cycle with
(KS3 strategy manager).
a value in
it’s about
schools to
a resource
Besides KS3, a range of other initiatives, in subjects such as enterprise education,
music, and creative arts, were all used by quadrants to give direction and coherence to
collaborative developments in practice.
Challenge for improvement
Research indicates that members of a collaborative group will face tensions between
the desire for task completion and the need for social cohesion (Johnson and Johnson,
1994). Such tensions arise because group members tend to engage in task-related
behaviours on an unequal basis. As a result, those who are highly committed may
create a degree of hostility amongst colleagues who are less committed to the task in
hand. Consequently, there is a need to take action to maintain effective working
relationships within the group. This means that it is difficult to create a sense of
mutual challenge within such collaborative working arrangements. Indeed, it can be
argued that the ultimate text of a mature partnership is the degree to which members
63
can use differences of view as a resource for stimulating creativity and mutual
learning.
From an early stage there was evidence in some of the quadrants of a critical edge to
discussions about priorities and what they really needed to address. However, tensions
sometimes became apparent, particularly when improvement efforts really needed the
agreement of all of the headteachers within a quadrant. On such occasions, as one
LEA officer explained, sometimes ‘within quadrants, the primary thing is to preserve
the harmony of the group’. In some cases explicit challenges were apparent, but this
was not been easy to achieve. So, for example, authentic peer review amongst groups
of heads proved difficult to engage without some form of external input.
Our accounts also show how, at the level of both headteachers and teachers, staff
often put energy into presenting themselves in a good light, showing off their most
successful initiatives and developments – and sometimes avoiding reference to the
difficulties they were facing. As a result, in such instances the preservation of face
restricted the extent to which collaborative groups could tackle the most sensitive
issues in schools.
Other initiatives in the LEA were significant factors in creating a sense of challenge in
many of the schools. As noted earlier, the entire secondary advisory team had left the
LEA prior to April 2002, with new appointments marking a transition to a more
systematically challenging culture of school improvement. Over the two years which
coincided with the TSE project, LEA advisers worked to build a challenging
partnership with headteachers – and this was facilitated in part by their involvement in
quadrant collaboration. As we saw in the accounts, the quadrants provided advisers
with a useful forum to place challenges in front of groups of headteachers.
Nevertheless, monitoring discussions and strategy meetings with individual
headteachers continued to be the most significant opportunities to present and assist
with the challenge of improvement. These discussions often reached deep into the
detail of school practice. One adviser gave an example of how she had been working
at the level of particular pupils, planning with a headteacher what to do for seventeen
pupils who made poor progress from KS2 to 3.
It strikes us that such discussions with individuals who are driving for an increase in
standards will continue to be an important source of support and challenge to
headteachers, whatever the nature of the collaborative structures that exist. The key
difference is that the locus of responsibility lies within schools, leaving ‘outsiders’
such as LEA staff to use their wider experience to support and challenge those who
are working together to lead improvement efforts.
Balancing tensions
Collaboration involves working not with an abstract or distant model of ‘good
practice’ but through learning directly from neighbouring schools what is possible in
the context of the inevitable tensions and compromises with which school leaders and
teachers have to deal. The accounts show how headteachers with different priorities
tended to emphasise different resolutions of these tensions, and how these differences
can be very productive. The different levels of provision for lower and higher
attaining pupils made by schools in Quadrant B, for example, led to productive
64
exchange of resources and mutual learning. In A, the direct link with the special
school led to developmental work on areas that might have otherwise received little
attention in the push for targets.
It is also clear that where schools do work together, new possibilities can be created
which resolve tensions in a different and more positive way. So, for example, schools
in B began to widen their curriculum offer by systematically offering places on
courses to pupils from the other schools. Quadrant C provided a different kind of
example, where the strength of the group led to a shared responsibility for addressing
the problem of excluded pupils.
As we saw, in two of the quadrants coordinators played an important role in
sustaining improvement efforts in the context of competing pressures. It was
noticeable, for example, how they were able to create momentum through particular
projects, seeking out opportunities, and building allegiances. On some occasions they
were seen to hold back where they judged attempts to engage in collaborative effort to
be counterproductive. This leads us to argue that collaboration for school
improvement requires someone who can take challenges to a headteacher, or group of
headteachers, and, at the same time, maintain a forward-looking dialogue that helps to
expand horizons beyond the individual school.
65
9. Implications
The findings of this study show that school-to-school collaboration has an enormous
potential for fostering system–wide improvement, particularly in urban contexts. As
we have seen, over a relatively short period, secondary schools in Nottingham have
demonstrated how such arrangements can provide an effective means of solving
immediate problems, such as staff shortages; how they can have a positive impact
during periods of crisis, such as during the closure of a school; and, how, in the longer
run, schools working together can contribute to the raising of aspirations and
attainment in schools that have had a record of low achievement. These findings are,
we believe, a significant contribution to school improvement knowledge, particularly
in relation to system-wide reform.
At the same time, our evidence points to the fact that the successful use of such
approaches is far from straight forward. Specifically, it requires certain organisational
conditions to be in place. This is particularly so within the English context, where
competition and choice continue to be the driving forces of national education policy.
In essence, then, the Nottingham experience suggests that the conditions that are
necessary in order to make school-to-school collaboration effective are as follows:

The presence of incentives that encourage key stake holders to explore the
possibility that collaboration will be in their own interests;

The development of collective responsibility for bringing about improvements
in all the partner organisations;

Headteachers and other senior staff in schools who are willing and able to
drive collaboration forward;

The creation of common improvement agendas that are seen to be relevant to a
wide range of stakeholders;

External help from credible consultants / advisers (from the LEA or
elsewhere) who have the confidence to learn alongside their school-based
partners; and

An LEA willingness and desire to support and engage with the collaborative
process.
It is our view that the absence of such conditions will mean that attempts to encourage
schools to work together are likely to lead to time-consuming talk, which sooner or
later will be dropped. These conclusions are in themselves important for those
national initiatives, such as LIG and the networked learning communities sponsored
by the National College for School Leadership, that invest resources in the idea of
schools working in partnership.
Taking account of these conclusions, in this chapter we consider the implications for
the future development of the Nottingham strategy. Then, finally, we look at what
might be the wider implications, not least for the Government’s national reform
agenda.
66
Next steps for Nottingham
Whilst our conclusions about what has occurred in Nottingham are very positive,
there is still much to be done if the somewhat uneven progress that has been achieved
can be turned to even greater effect. This involves further steps to widen involvement
in the strategy and to deepen the levels of commitment across the education service,
and, indeed, amongst the wider community in the city.
Amongst the secondary schools themselves more now needs to be done to strengthen
the strategy of collaboration. In this sense, we anticipate that the present quadrant
structures will gradually be re-shaped and, in some instances disappear. In our view,
this would not, in itself, represent a failure of the strategy, provided that the emphasis
on schools working together continues as a central plank of overall school
improvement in the city. Crucially though, a major feature of the current quadrant
structure is that it involves all secondary schools in a coordinated way. A more
piecemeal approach to collaboration would run the risk that particular schools are
marginalised in new groupings. If this included schools facing challenging
circumstances, the process could lead to greater disparities between schools rather
than less, with some students at a greater disadvantage. This does seem unlikely at the
moment, given that the schools in challenging circumstances in the city tend to be
those that are most enthusiastic about collaboration, but it will be important to
monitor future developments in relation to the issue of equity.
Our view is that the way to strengthen the collaborative strategy is by going further
still towards collective management of the operation by headteachers. The LEA has
moved a long way, by establishing a regular meeting for headteachers of schools
facing challenging circumstances, for example, and of course the individual quadrants
are currently managed only by the respective headteachers. The aim now should be to
build on what has been achieved to consolidate a more collegial set of relationships,
based on a common commitment to improvement across schools and to principles of
equity and social justice. Provided the heads genuinely feel that they are in control of
the agendas that are so defined, we would be optimistic that this could be achieved.
In our discussions with heads, we found none that did not believe in the idea of
collaborating with other schools. As we have explained, those who were negative
towards the TSE strategy were so because they felt that it had been imposed.
What has also been learnt, particularly through the case studies, is that the
development of specific structures of collaboration takes time. The attitudes of key
staff towards working collaboratively have become more positive, but working with
new people is likely always to require a period of learning before trust and common
purpose is established.
We cannot conceive of a way for collaboration to continue as a central element of
improvement strategy, without an active and skilled core of LEA staff. In our view, all
of this relies on the new roles that LEA staff have been developing over the last two
years. Some staff in the LEA have become skilled in new ways of working with
headteachers and groups of heads. As we have seen, the contributions of LEA
advisers, for example, were very significant in the development of the quadrants.
This being the case, they are well equipped to take on the task of supporting and
challenging schools within a set of agreed principles, as the headteachers take on the
67
overall management of improvement across the city. But this is a subtle and
demanding position for LEA staff, requiring that habits of self-review of thinking and
practice continue.
This points towards the sorts of roles that LEA staff need to continue to focus on: not
managing and leading change, but rather working in partnership with senior people in
the schools to strengthen collaborative ways of working. They can bring specific
challenges which derive from their knowledge of the big picture across the authority,
and their clarity of purpose in terms of where the process is heading. In support of
improvement, they have an understanding gained through working alongside
headteachers through particular difficulties, and they are able to broker the sharing of
resources and expertise.
There are many other groups that will need to be connected into such a strategy.
Some primary schools have been collaborating with each other and with secondary
schools through a network of EAZs, and there has been considerable work on
effective transition to secondary school. However, the strategies have so far run
largely in parallel, mainly because of the geographical spread of quadrants. This
being the case, the consolidation of collaborative school improvement in Nottingham
must, in our view, involve the primary sector as a matter of urgency.
Similarly, with one exception, special schools have had little involvement, leaving
that sector of the service dangerously isolated from the developments in education
across the city. It also means that opportunities for widening the roles that colleagues
in that sector might take in the development of a more inclusive education system are
being missed. Again, opportunities should be created and sought to connect special
schools into the strategy, building on the specific experience of the one quadrant
where this has happened.
Beyond the schools, there is a need to reach out to others who have a keen interest in
the education system in order that they can add their resources to a city-wide strategy.
In particular, more needs to be done to ensure that parents/carers, elected members,
governors and local community agencies and organisations are aware of, and feel
confident about, the way that the city’s strategy is moving. In this respect, the linking
of LEA advisers into the new area committees, designed to involve the wider
community more successfully, is a very promising development. Given the
implications of the recent Children Act, the involvement of other agencies that
provide services to children and young people is essential. We would argue, too, that
our experience in Nottingham suggests that the role of local press should not be
underestimated in shaping opinion within the community.
The issue of leadership
In terms of moving things forward in Nottingham, then, the issue of shared leadership
is a central factor. More specifically, there is a need for forms of leadership that will
involve many stakeholders in sharing responsibility for improving the achievement of
learners in all of schools in the city. As we have argued, this will require further
significant change in beliefs and attitude, and new relationships, as well as
improvements in practice.
68
There is evidence that when schools, such as those in Nottingham, seek to develop
more collaborative ways of working, this can have an impact on how teachers
perceive themselves and their work (Rosenholtz, 1989). Specifically, comparisons
of practice can lead teachers to view underachieving students in a new light (Talbert
& McLaughlin, 1994). Rather than simply presenting problems that are assumed to
be insurmountable, such students may be perceived as providing feedback on
existing classroom arrangements. In this way they may be seen as sources of
understanding as to how these arrangements might be developed in ways that could
be of benefit to all members of the class.
But experience in the Nottingham quadrants has borne out what research suggests,
that developments in practice, particularly amongst more experienced teachers, are
unlikely to occur without some exposure to what teaching actually looks like when it
is being done differently, and exposure to someone who can help teachers understand
the difference between what they are doing and what they aspire to do (Elmore et al
1996; Joyce and Showers, 1988, Hopkins et al, 1994). It also seems that this sort of
problem has to be solved at the individual level before it can be solved at the
organisational level. Indeed, there is evidence that increasing collaboration can
sometimes result in teachers coming together to reinforce existing practices rather
than confronting the difficulties they face in different ways (Lipman, 1997). This is
why leadership is such a key factor in ensuring that collaboration involves both
support and challenge.
By and large the evidence is that schools find it difficult to cope with change,
particularly where this involves modifications in thinking and practice (Fullan,
1991). As we have explained, in recent years schools in England have had to respond
to a plethora of innovations aimed at raising standards. This is one of the reasons
why a close scrutiny of what has happened in Nottingham is so fascinating, where
there is evidence that collaboration leading to improvement has been given impetus
by external pressure.
Just like many other social organisations undergoing significant transformation, in
schools that are under pressure to change the search is on for what Fullan (1991)
describes as ‘order and correctness’. Teachers searching for correctness will
inevitably experience ambiguity and a lack of understanding of the direction and
purposes of the change. Thus, the search for order is a search to determine what
actions to take when faced with ambiguous situations.
Weick (1985) characterises schools as ‘underorganised systems’ in that although
they tend to be ambiguous and disorderly there is, nevertheless, some order.
Furthermore, he argues, anyone who can help to create more order within an
underorganised system can bring about change. This may, in part at least, throw
some light on what has occurred in Nottingham. Unusual and challenging factors,
emanating as they do from both outside and inside the schools, have created a sense
of ambiguity. The structural arrangements introduced by some of the headteachers
have helped to resolve these, and, as a result, they are gradually drawing staff
together behind broadly similar principles. As Weick explains, because ambiguity in
organisations increases the extent to which action is guided by values and ideology
the values of ‘powerful people’ (i.e. those who can reduce ambiguity) affect what the
organisation is and what it can become. Thus, according to Weick, those who resolve
ambiguity for themselves and others can implant a new set of values in an
organisation, which creates a new set of relevancies and competencies, and, in so
69
doing, introduces a source of innovation. In this way ambiguity sets the scene for
organisations to learn about themselves and their environments, allowing them to
emerge from their struggles with uncertainty in a different form than when they
started the confrontation.
It seems, therefore, that the perspective and skills of headteachers are central to an
understanding of what needs to happen in order that the potential power of
collaboration can be mobilised. Their visions for their schools, their beliefs about how
they can foster the learning of all of their students, and their commitment to the power
of inter-dependent learning, appear to be a key influence. All of this means, of course,
that replication of these processes in other schools would be difficult, particularly if
those in charge are unwilling or unable to make fundamental changes in working
patterns.
Wider implications
Moving beyond the level of schools, the study confirms other research that shows
how what goes on at the district level has a significant role to play in respect to
processes of school improvement (Ainscow, Howes & Tweddle, 2005). Previous
research indicates that attempts to move schools in a more collaborative direction
within the current overall policy context are problematic. Much of what goes on
within organisations, such as LEAs and schools, is largely taken-for-granted and
rarely discussed, so that the pressures for competition, for example, can undermine
processes aiming for collaboration, because the tensions between the two are not
understood and controlled.
Interestingly, as we have noted, the newly appointed secondary advisory team in
Nottingham LEA in 2002 could take very little for granted, so that practices were
thoroughly examined in developing new ways of working. This self-evaluation
enhanced the clarity of the team in ways that made them more effective at supporting
collaboration and making appropriate challenges. It seems to us that significant
progress across a whole system requires an engagement with questions of purpose and
values at all levels. Such an engagement would, we believe, be facilitated by the
adoption of the ‘public value management’ approach we referred to in chapter 1, with
its emphasis on networks of deliberation and delivery’. This suggests that the way
forward is for LEAs to engage their professional communities in a process of debate
about what is meant by quality and achievement in education in a way that
emphasises equity and social justice. It would also imply the negotiation of new,
inter-dependent relationships between schools, LEAs and their wider communities, of
the sort we have begun to see emerging in Nottingham.
Introducing such an approach in the current context, with its cocktail of competing
agendas and confusion about forms of governance, is, however, far from
straightforward. We argue, then, that levers need to be found that will be powerful in
encouraging the development of inter-dependence amongst groups of schools within
districts.
Through our own work, we have tried to ‘map’ factors which can be influenced at the
LEA level that have the potential to either facilitate or inhibit collaboration amongst
schools (Ainscow & Howes, 2001; Ainscow & Tweddle, 2003; Ainscow, West &
Nicolaidou, 2005). Our research suggests that two factors, particularly when they are
70
closely linked, seem to be super-ordinate to all others. These are: clarity of purpose,
and the forms of evidence that are used to measure educational performance.
Enhancing clarity of purpose through a well-orchestrated debate about values can
have leverage in respect to fostering the conditions within which groups of schools
can feel encouraged to collaborate in achieving common purposes. As we have
argued, such a debate needs to involve all stakeholders within a local community,
including politicians and, indeed, the media. It must also involve those within the
local education department so that they have clarity as to what must drive their
actions. What Nottingham shows is that such debate need not take place in the
abstract. Opportunities to pursue the debate can be sought and taken alongside what
have become the everyday processes of school improvement.
Our search for ‘levers’ has also led us to acknowledge the importance of evidence. In
essence, it leads us to conclude that, within education systems, ‘what gets measured
gets done’. So, for example, LEAs are required to collect far more statistical data
than ever before. This is widely recognised as a double-edged sword precisely
because it is such a potent lever for change. On the one hand, data are required in
order to monitor the progress of children, evaluate the impact of interventions, review
the effectiveness of policies and processes, plan new initiatives, and so on. In these
senses, data can, justifiably, be seen as the life-blood of continuous improvement.
However, if effectiveness is evaluated on the basis of narrow, even inappropriate,
performance indicators, then the impact can be deeply damaging. Whilst appearing to
promote the causes of accountability and transparency, the use of data can, in
practice: conceal more than they reveal; invite misinterpretation; and, worse of all,
have a perverse effect on the behaviour of professionals. This has led the current
‘audit explosion’ (Power, 1994) to be described as a ‘tyranny of transparency’
(Strathern, 2000).
All of this suggests that great care needs to be exercised in deciding what evidence is
collected and, indeed, how it is used. LEAs are required by Government to collect
particular data. Given national policies, they cannot opt out of collecting such data on
the grounds that their publication might be misinterpreted, or that they may influence
practice in an unhelpful way. On the other hand, LEAs and schools are free to collect
additional evidence that can then be used to evaluate the effectiveness of their own
policy and practice in respect to progress towards greater equity within the system.
The challenge for LEAs is, therefore, to work with schools to harness the potential of
evidence as a lever for change, whilst avoiding the problems described earlier.
National policy implications
All of this suggests that the Government’s current emphasis on ‘independent specialist
schools’ needs to be handled sensitively if it is not to further disadvantage groups of
learners who already underachieving. Whilst it is true that, by and large, when
schools improve it is a result of leadership from the inside, it is also the case that the
wider context influences the progress of such improvement efforts, for good or ill.
This is the power of what we have characterised as ‘inter-dependence’. It leads us to
argue that, in order to improve, schools do have to become more autonomous and
self-improving; at the same time, it draws our attention to the way that neighbouring
schools can add value to one another’s efforts.
71
This being the case, we suggest that in its efforts to improve education across the
country, the Government would be naive to overlook the influence of what happens at
the local authority level, particularly in urban districts. Local history, interconnections between schools and established relationships are always there, even if
we choose to ignore them. This being the case, we suggest that real progress towards a
national education system that is geared to raising standards for all students, in all
schools, requires the systematic orchestration and, sometimes, the redistribution of
available resources and expertise at the local level.
Continuing with the search for powerful levers, we would also argue that further
attention needs to be given at the national level to the interconnected areas of
principles and forms of evaluation. That is to say, we believe that it will be helpful to
those at the local level who are encouraging schools to collaborate if national policy
initiatives continue to emphasise the principle of collaboration as a fundamental
strategy in efforts to raise standards across the education system; and, remembering
that ‘what gets measured gets done’, if the regulatory frameworks that are used to
determine effectiveness place a similar attention to this factor.
Conclusion
Much of recent research on school improvement places an emphasis on collaboration
and inquiry (Fullan, 1991; Hopkins et al, 1994). As Copland (2003) suggests, inquiry
can be the ‘engine’ to enable the distribution of leadership, and the ‘glue’ that can
bind a school community together around a common purpose. Turning these
successes into processes that make a deeper and more sustainable impact on the
culture of schools is, however, much more difficult. This necessitates longer-term,
persistent strategies for capacity building at the school level. As we have argued, it
also requires new thinking and, indeed, new relationships at the district level. In other
words, efforts to foster system-wide school improvement are more likely to be
effective when they are part of a wider strategy.
As we have seen, leadership practices are central to such developments. In particular,
there is a need to encourage coordinated and sustained efforts by whole staff groups
around the idea that changing outcomes for all students is unlikely to be achieved
unless there are changes in the behaviours of adults (West, Ainscow & Stanford,
2005). Consequently, the starting point for school improvement must be with staff
members: in effect, enlarging their capacity to imagine what might be achieved, and
increasing their sense of accountability for bringing this about. This may also involve
tackling taken for granted assumptions, most often relating to expectations about
certain groups of students, their capabilities, behaviour and patterns of attendance.
All of this is based on the idea that schools know more than they use and that the
logical starting point for development is, therefore, with a detailed analysis of existing
practices (Ainscow, 1999). This allows good practices to be identified and shared,
whilst, at the same time, drawing attention to ways of working that may be creating
barriers to the participation and learning of some students. However, as we have
stressed, the focus must not only be on practice. It must also address and sometimes
challenge the thinking behind existing ways of working. Schools working together,
collecting and engaging with evidence, provides a means of surfacing and challenging
taken for granted assumptions that may be the source of the barriers that some
learners experience.
72
References
Ainscow, M. (1999) Understanding the Development of Inclusive Schools. London:
Falmer Press.
Ainscow, M., Booth, T., Dyson, A., Farrell, P., Frankham, J., Gallannaugh, F.,
Howes, A. and Smith, R. (2005) Improving Schools, Developing Inclusion. London:
RoutledgeFalmer (in press)
Ainscow, M. and Chapman, C. (2005) The challenge of sustainable school
improvement. Paper presented at the International Congress of School Effectiveness
and Improvement, Barcelona, January
Ainscow, M., Howes, A. and Tweddle, D. (2005) Making sense of the impact of
recent education policies: a study of practice. In Emmerich, M. (Ed.), Public
Services Under New Labour. University of Manchester: The Institute for Political
and Economical Governance
Ainscow, M. and Tweddle, D. (2003) Understanding the changing role of English
local education authorities in promoting inclusion. In: J. Allan (Ed.) Inclusion,
Participation and Democracy: What is the Purpose? Kluwer, Academic Publishers,
pp.165-177.
Ainscow, M., West, M. and Nicolaidou, M. (2005) Putting our heads together:
a study of headteacher collaboration as a strategy for school improvement. In
Clarke, C. (ED.) Improving Schools in Difficult Circumstances. London:
Continuum (in press)
Copland, M.A. (2003) Leadership of inquiry: building and sustaining capacity for
school improvement. Educational Evaluation and Polcy Analysis, 25 (4), 375-395
Elmore, R.F., Peterson, P.L. and McCarthy, S.J. (1996). Restructuring in the
Classroom: Teaching, Learning and School Organisation. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Fielding, M. (1999) Radical collegiality: affirming teaching as an inclusive
professional practice. Australian Educational Researcher 26 (2), 1-34
Fullan, M. (1991) The New Meaning of Educational Change. Cassell
Hargreaves, D. H. (2003) Education Epidemic:
Schools Through Innovation Networks. London: Demos
Transforming
Secondary
Harris, A., Muijs, D., Chapman, C., Stoll, L. and Russ, J. (2003) Raising Attainment
in Former Coalfield Areas. Sheffield: DfES
Hopkins, D., Ainscow, M. and West, M. (1994) School Improvement in an Era of
Change. London; Cassell
73
Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R.T. (1994) Learning Together and Alone. (Boston:
Allyn and Bacon).
Joyce, B. and Showers, B. (1988) Student Achievement Through Staff Development.
London: Longman.
Lipman, P. (1997) Restructuring in context: a case study of teacher participation and
the dynamics of ideology, race and power. American Educational Research Journal
34(1), 3-37
Maden, M. (2001) Success Against the Odds: Five years on. London: Routledge
National Commission on Education. (1996) Success Against the Odds: Effective
schools in in disadvantaged areas. London: Routledge
Power, M. (1994) The Audit Explosion. London: Demos
Reynolds, D., Hopkins, D., Potter, D. and Chapman, C. (2001) School Improvement
for Schools facing Challenging Circumstances: A review of Research and Practice.
London: DfEE
Rosenholtz, S. (1989) Teachers’ Workplace: The Social Organisation
of Schools. New York: Longman.
Schon, D. (ed.) (1991) The Reflective Turn. New York: Teachers College Press
Senge, P.M. (1989) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organisation. London: Century.
Stoker, G. (2003) Public value management: a new resolution of the
democracy/efficency trade off. www.ipeg.org.uk/publications.htm
Strathern, M. (2000) The tyranny of transparency. British Educational Research
Journal. 26 (3), 309-321
Thrupp, M. (2001) School quasi-markets in England and Wales: Best understood as a
class strategy? Paper presented at the conference of the British Education Research
Association. Leeds, September 2001
Talbert, J.E. and McLaughlin, M.W. (1994) Teacher professionalism in local school
contexts. American Journal of Education 102, 120-159.
Weick, K.E. (1985) Sources of order in underorganised systems: Themes in recent
organisational theory. In Y.S. Lincoln (Ed.), Organisational Theory and Inquiry.
Beverley Hills : Sage.
74
West, M., Ainscow, M. and Stanford, J. (2005) Sustaining improvements in schools in
challenging circumstances: a study of successful practice. School Leadership and
Management 25(1), 77-93
75
Appendix A. Timeline of events
This timeline provides a brief summary of key events in TSE.
notable LEA / TSE / quadrant events
Prior to
TSE
evaluation stages
strong EiC partnerships
Appointment of KS3 strategy manager and
assistant director for school improvement
May-02
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Jan-03
February
March
April
May
June
July
September
October
November
December
Jan-04
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
Jan-05
TSE commences (one secondary adviser in post)
quadrants finalised in meeting
initial quadrant meetings
principal adviser appointed
TSE Launch 4th November
third adviser appointed (quad C)
B school into special measures
fourth secondary adviser appointed
external evaluation baseline phase
interviews
initial attitude questionnaires
Quadrant C coordinator appointed
start of creative arts project in B; teaching and
learning day C
interviews
interviews and meetings
interim report to TSE steering committee
LEA Ofsted; quadrant link D adviser appointed;
C: preliminary LE bid
joint training day C in curriculum areas
end of funded TSE project; D curric group formed
interviews
C: review and planning day; C3 out of special
measures
interviews
second attitude questionnaire
secondary adviser leaves
analysis
interviews and meetings
Interviews, writing case studies
draft evaluation report
cross quadrant conference
76
Appendix B. Conditions for School Improvement Survey
In order to understand how TSE had influenced the thinking of staff in schools, we
undertook an attitude survey called ‘Conditions for School Improvement’. A version
of this survey has been used in previous projects, and notably within the IQEA
network. Staff were asked to indicate how far they agreed or disagreed with the
following statements.
Reflection
1.
In this school we talk about the quality of our teaching.
2.
Lesson plans are shared by all staff in our department.
3.
I look for feedback from pupils or staff to make my teaching more effective.
4.
I plan lessons with other staff in the school.
Involvement
5. We consult students about their experience at this school.
6.
Governors and staff here work together effectively in strategic planning.
7.
We make effective use of expertise in the other schools in our quadrant.
8.
My own practice is influenced by my involvement in quadrant activities.
Staff development
9.
Professional learning is valued in this school.
10. The school provides time for staff development.
11. Department meetings are used for discussion of the practice of teaching and learning.
12. I have tried out different ways of teaching in the past term.
Leadership
13. Senior management are actively addressing the key challenges we face as a school.
14. Staff have a clear vision of where we are going.
15. Many staff are given opportunities to take on leadership roles.
16. I feel effectively supported to develop as a leader.
Collaboration between schools
17. There is a lot of real collaboration between secondary schools in Nottingham.
18. Cooperation between secondary schools in Nottingham is increasing.
19. The quadrant we are in will help improve the quality of education in some schools.
20. I am happy to participate actively in the ongoing evaluation of the quadrant.
77
comparison of average sample score
score (maximum 4)
4
3
2004 sample average (7
schools)
2
2003 sample average (9
schools)
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
it e
m
0
Conditions of school survey item
Interpretation
The results of this survey must be treated with caution. The return on the July 2004 survey
was only reasonable, with 69 staff responding across seven schools, as opposed to 165 across
nine schools in July 2003. Nevertheless, it is striking that:

All scores are very comparable for the two years, suggesting that there is some reliability
in the scale as completed by Nottingham school staff.

Average scores are higher only on those items relating to learning from other schools
through collaboration.
7.
We make effective use of expertise in the other schools in our quadrant.
8.
My own practice is influenced by my involvement in quadrant activities.
17. There is a lot of real collaboration between secondary schools in Nottingham.

It is in areas of leadership (facing challenges, clarity of vision, supporting development of
leaders) that responses suggest a decrease in confidence, on average.
78