collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012
DESCRIPTION
Presentation by Dr James LaneTRANSCRIPT
Research Focus: A critical enquiry into the nature of collaborative structures for school development focusing on
‘Networked Learning Communities’ in one London Local Authority
“The new kinaesthetics of collaboration run against the grain of historical processes and
we will have to learn how to do it well.” David Jackson
Key question and aims:
• Question:– To what extent has the introduction of Networked Learning
Communities influenced collaboration among schools in a London Local Authority?
• Aims:– Identify the key features of this particular type of
collaboration– Develop an understanding of the operation of the NLCs
• Explore the intended aims of this collaborative and how these aims were developed
• Review the actual outcomes of the NLCs (as have been achieved up until the point of completion of the research – the NLCs are still in place and ongoing)
• Analyse the processes and practises of the NLCs
– Analyse and evaluate gaps between intentions and outcomes
Motivations for Research• The ‘intuitive promise’ of collaboration;– networks, collaborations, clusters, federations,
partnerships• Government policy / NCSL initiatives;– NLCs, PSLNs, teaching schools, LA clusters
• Previous research;– Fullan, Hargreaves, Stoll, West-Burnham, Hopkins
• But does the evidence support the ‘intuitive promise’ of collaboration for school improvement?– Pilot study found… “School leaders are positive about
collaboration, but the collaborative structures studied did not produce joint work of any depth” (Lane 2008 p. 32)
Knowledge Gap• If collaborative structures are to be
recommended as an approach to school improvement – there needs to be clarity about how to maximise their impact
• Others agree…– “Collective capacity is the hidden resource we fail to
understand and cultivate” (Fullan p.4 “All Systems Go” 2010)– “It will take time to generate an evidence base of partnership
competence in clusters of schools” (Hargreaves p. 17 “Creating a Self Improving school System” 2010)
• There is, to my knowledge, no research that explores the efficacy of forced or incentivised networks in education (such as the LA NLCs)
Definition:
• A local authority NLC (LA NLC): –Groups of schools brought together by the
local authority or some other agency and encouraged or incentivised to work together in intentional ways to enhance the quality of professional learning and to strengthen capacity for continuous school improvement in the service of enhanced student learning (Lane 2012 p. 11)
School Improvement – the past?• Existing top down, centrally prescribed school
improvement is no longer effective (if it ever was)
• This approach is limited because...– Schools are complex and dynamic– Lacks clarity and coherence– ‘School level' focus rather than 'learning level’– Issues of implementation. • If classroom practice is going to change then teacher
behaviours and practices as well as their beliefs and understandings
Plus – the unintended outcomes:• Existing school improvement structures can be
detrimental in terms of ...– Teacher morale – Narrowing of the curriculum– Treatment of ethnic minorities and lower socio-
economic classes – Overall lack of impact
• “The centre cannot devise enough innovation across the whole range of teacher practice to implement the required rate of change” Hargreaves (2003)
Definition:
• School Improvement: –A systematic, sustained and morally
structured approach to educational change that is data driven and relevant to the school’s context and identified need. Practice oriented staff development, within and beyond the school, builds teaching and learning capacity as a means by which pupil achievement and attainment can be enhanced (Lane 2012 p. 81).
The changing context:• Coalition government elected May 2010• New direction for educational policy – ‘The Case for
Change’ (2010). – The UK has slipped down the international school
performance table. Learn lessons from other, ‘more successful’ school systems.
• The document makes a case for:– Higher levels of school autonomy– Development of good teaching – The importance of good leaders– Combining higher school autonomy with effective
accountability
Government policy intention:• “The Importance of Teaching, The Schools White
Paper” (2010)– Free teachers from constraint and improve their
professional status and authority– Raise the standards set by our curriculum and
qualifications to match the best in the world– Hold schools effectively to account for the results they
achieve– Ensure that school funding is fair, with more money for the
most disadvantaged– Support teachers to learn from one another and from
proven best practice
Government Policy Intentions (Con’t)
• "We will make sure that they (schools) have access to appropriate data and information so that they can identify other schools from which they might wish to learn, that there is a strong network of highly effective schools they can draw on for more intensive support, and that schools can identify other useful forms of external support as necessary". (Schools White Paper: Section 7.6)
The case for collaboration:• Incorporate the ‘moral purpose’ into T&L– Raising the bar, narrowing the gap and nurturing the
child• Teachers working smarter together– Share ideas, enquire into practice, generate new
knowledge – all within the context of the school– Build the capacity of the individual, the school and the
system, raise standards and promote a broader range of outcomes, sustainable improvements
• School improvement through ‘harnessing’ the intuitive power of networking and collaboration
‘Collaborative inevitability?’• Many authors in the school improvement field present a
collaborative future as a foregone conclusion...– “The ability to work collaboratively is becoming one of the
core requisites of contemporary school reform. Therefore, expanding the understanding of collaboration is important for theory, policy and practice.” Slater 2005
• Implications are that school leaders have a lot to learn...– “It will take time to generate an evidence base of
partnership competence in clusters of schools” Hargreaves 2010
– “Collective capacity is the hidden resource we fail to understand and cultivate” Fullan 2010
• But do schools really have a collaborative future?
Definition:
• Collaboration: –Any situation in which school staff are
supported to develop robust professional relationships across boundaries within and between schools. These relationships enable them to enquire into practice and build capacity that facilitates improved learning outcomes for all staff and higher attainment for pupils (Lane 2012 p. 51)
Learning communities• Professional Learning Communities (PLCs)– A single organisation
• Networked Learning Communities (NLCs)– A group of organisations (similar features to a PLC, but
works across a broader landscape)• Collaboration, underpinned by clearly defined
purposes and formal supporting structures...– Building T&L capacity in context– System improvement– Teacher moral (ownership and engagement)– And ultimately student outcomes
Learning community – features:• Focus:– A LC will have a explicit purpose based around
classroom practice, school improvement or pupil learning
• Relationships:– A LC will engender trust, mutual accountability and
agreed power sharing; this in turn fosters commitment to the shared goals
• Collaboration:– This should open up opportunities for sharing within
and between schools, spreading innovation and providing levels of motivation
Learning community – features:• Enquiry:
– This is the fundamental tenant of the networking process. Developing knowledge, reflecting on learning and challenging teaching practice
• Leadership:– Different to traditional concepts of school leadership.
Distributed (Level 5 Leadership – Jim Collins)• Accountability:
– LC needs to be transparent in its decisions and self monitoring
• Building capacity and support:– The purpose of the LC is to build capacity both within
schools and between schools. (DFES 2004 b p. 6)
Learning Focus• Level 1: The Classroom
– A pupil learning focus • Level 2: Adults
– Challenge and improve existing practice• Level 3: Leaders
– Distribute leadership, lead with EI, build teams• Level 4: School
– Flexible and adaptable, responds to context• Level 5: Network
– Learning through sharing• Level 6: System
– Learning about practice is a requirement of the system
Definition:
• Networked learning: –An intentional effort to articulate
professional experiences into sharable knowledge within and between schools with the intention of improving the teaching and learning of teachers – ultimately improving pupil outcomes (Lane 2012 p. 57)
Compelling
Practice Inquiry
PLCPLC
PLC
PLCPLC
PLC
PLC
Purpose
Moral Purpose
NLCs – Idealised ModelSITU
ATION
AL LEARNIN
G TH
AT’S CON
TEXTUALLY RELEVAN
T
Learning...
•Pupil
•Adult
•Leaders
•Organisation
•School to school
LA NLC – Intended outcomes:Intentions
Raise standards of pupil performanceEffective sharing of resources – financial, energy, intelligence, support servicesStaff capacity buildingImprove potential for work / life balance for heads through high leverage SI activitiesProduce new approach to leadership (‘entrepreneurial’ leadership)Improve motivation and morale of heads
Findings – identified gaps:IntentionsRaise standards of pupil performanceEffective sharing of resources – financial, energy, intelligence, support servicesStaff capacity buildingImprove potential for work / life balance for heads through high leverage SI activitiesProduce new approach to leadership (‘entrepreneurial’ leadership)Improve motivation and morale of heads
OutcomesLA NLCs did not maintain a focus on raising standardsEvidence of sharing financial resources – but not any wider support/sharing/knowledge creationNo evidence of capacity buildingNo evidence improved work / life balance. In fact most heads saw the NLC as ‘bolt on’ to their own SI workNo evidence of impact on leadership learning – in fact heads talk about the ‘game’ of leadershipNo clear evidence that the motivation and morale of heads has been improved by NLCs
Analysis• Gap between the intentions and observed
outcomes due to...– Implementation by LEA (later the LA)...• Lack of clarity over aims/outcomes/processes• Lack of trust and credible facilitation of LA - collaboration
viewed as a tool for control• Selection of NLC members imposed
– ‘Accountability produced pragmatism’– Lack of capacity to engage (the ‘catch 22’ of
capacity building’) – Unequal levels of influence between NLC members
Self InterestIndividual School
School
Response to short term dem
ands (School / LA / N
ational Initiative)
LEA Expectations
Resources / Finance
H/T
School
School
School
School
School
School
Performance
Indicators
NLCs – Actual Model
Definition:
• Dysfunctional collaboration: –A limited and limiting approach to
collaboration that is not based on robust relationships or capacity building outcomes. However, participants work together cooperatively to benefit from centrally held resources and joint commissioning initiatives (Lane 2012 p. 159)
Outcomes
Behaviours, Transactionsand Processes
Motivation and Engagement
Implementation andFacilitation
Incentives(local schools)
Common Purpose(Voluntary)
Dysfunctional collaboration
Knowledge creation / capacity building / sharing
practice
Functional collaboration
Co-operation through... Joint projects /
commissioning
‘Harnessed’ Network ‘Natural’ Network
Network Theory
Quality of relationshipsHigh trustand commitment
Low trust and commitment
Effective NotEffective
Natural Vs Harnessed Networks – Lane 2011
Analysis• Headteacher identity– “I think one of the reasons that collaboration hasn’t
worked particularly well is that there is too much judgement in education. This means that you can go to a meeting and heads would say that they had done a lot of things and you would find out later that they hadn’t done them at all. People want to ‘sell a picture of themselves’ that is idealised.” (Headteacher 1 – primary headteacher)
– “In fact it is all a bit of a game really – this is not admitted openly by the other heads in the group, but I would say that it is something that is understood”. (Headteacher 5 – primary headteacher)
Expedience• Consequently, headteachers need to be
‘expedient’ about their decisions and actions...– Similar in some ways to ‘situational’ and ‘action
centred’ leadership– Expedient leadership is success and task
focussed with an emphasis on management perception (appearing to ‘play the game’) • “We found a way of being that worked for us, it
just wasn’t what we were supposed to be doing.” (Headteacher 6 – primary headteacher)
Expedient LeadershipExpedient Leader
(Driven by accountability / values of self)Collaborative Leader
(Driven by moral purpose / professional values)
Stability agent Change agentManages perceptions – shuns scrutiny and feedback (appears to ‘play the game’)
Collegiate approach – open to collaboration and input
Short term focus on success through results in tests
Long term focus on success through wider performance measures
Plugs gaps Builds capacityA 'get what you can' mentality A 'share what you have' mentalityRisk averse and sticks to traditional approaches
Creative – works with new approaches
School focused System focused
Headteacher’s decisions
Filtered through personal and professional identities
In line with personal identity
In line with professional identity
In line with professional and personal identity
Contextual considerations•Accountability•Policy/practice•Stakeholders•Staffing•Work/life balance
Headteacher Identity – Idealised Model
Headteacher’s decisions
School and System Focused(In line with professional and personal identity)
System Focused(In line with professional identity)
Filtered through personal and professional identities
School Focused(In line with personal identity)
Slanted by expedient leadership
Contextual considerations•Accountability•Policy/practice•Stakeholders•Staffing•Work/life balance
Identity and expedient leadership – Lane 2011
Headteacher Identity – Expedient Model
Conclusions (1 of 2)...• Incentivised networks...– While networks do have an intuitive promise, this is
virtually impossible to harness through incentivisation. There are significantly different in structure and process to ‘natural networks’ – they do not achieve ‘collaborative depth’ in terms of capacity building and knowledge generation.
• Headteacher identity...– The pressures of context linked to accountability
expectations fuel a leadership style which can be described as ‘expedient’ – a short term, success / task focussed approach that relies on managing external perceptions
Conclusions (2 of 2)…
• Expedient leadership...– Even though heads can identify the high leverage potential
of collaboration, in many cases they are anchored to the day to day requirements of their situation by an expedient leadership style.
• A collaborative future...– This research has shown no ‘natural progression’ towards a
more networked or collaborative approach by headteachers
– No real commitment to system leadership. Heads will maintain an espoused commitment to the notion, but their actions in most cases will be at odds with a system approach.
Active questions:• How could the implementation of the harnessed network be more
effective?– What could be done to overcome the issues brought about by forced
participation?– How could social capital be developed so that relational trust was built
and relationships were of a high quality?– What constitutes credible facilitation to the harnessed network’s
participants?• In what ways could motivation and engagement in the harnessed
networks be enhanced?– How could a common purpose be developed to focus the actions of the
network?– What accountability structures could overcome the tendency towards an
expedient approach in order to support participants to develop a ‘system wide’ view?
Active questions (con’t):
• How could behaviours, transactions and processes of the harnessed network ensure the involvement of wider number of staff within schools rather than being limited to headteachers?
• In what ways could high quality collaborative outcomes, which focus on practice development, knowledge creation and pupil learning, be assured and dysfunctional collaboration avoided?
Natural Vs Harnessed Networks – Lane 2011
Outcomes
Behaviours, Transactionsand Processes
Motivation and Engagement
Implementation andFacilitation
Incentives(local schools)
Common Purpose(Voluntary)
Dysfunctional collaboration
Knowledge creation / capacity building / sharing practice
Functional collaboration
Co-operation through... Joint projects / commissioning
‘Harnessed’ Network ‘Natural’ Network
Network Theory
Quality of relationshipsHigh trustand commitment
Low trust and commitment
Effective NotEffective
Original Contribution
Original Contribution
Intelligent System Focused
School FocusedHigh stakes
LowHigh
Perceived Accountability
Head’s Identity Filter
Collaboration
Key factors that restrict collaboration
Expedient Leadership – Lane 2011