collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

38
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

Upload: tzoubir

Post on 14-Jan-2015

212 views

Category:

Education


1 download

DESCRIPTION

Presentation by Dr James Lane

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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

Page 2: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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

Page 3: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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)

Page 4: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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)

Page 5: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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)

Page 6: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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

Page 7: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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)

Page 8: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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).

Page 9: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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

Page 10: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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

Page 11: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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)

Page 12: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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

Page 13: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

‘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?

Page 14: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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)

Page 15: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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

Page 16: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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

Page 17: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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)

Page 18: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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

Page 19: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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)

Page 20: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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

Page 21: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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

Page 22: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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

Page 23: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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

Page 24: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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

Page 25: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012
Page 26: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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)

Page 27: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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

Page 28: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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)

Page 29: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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)

Page 30: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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

Page 31: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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

Page 32: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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

Page 33: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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

Page 34: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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.

Page 35: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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?

Page 36: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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?

Page 37: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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

Page 38: Collaborative school reform hotseat june 2012

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