School Partnerships and Cooperation

House of Commons Education Committee

Fourth Report of Session 2013–14

Volume II Additional written evidence

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published 30 October 2013

Published on 6 November 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

The Education Committee

The Education Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department for Education and its associated public bodies.

Membership at time Report agreed: Mr Graham Stuart MP (Conservative, Beverley & Holderness) (Chair) Neil Carmichael MP (Conservative, Stroud) Alex Cunningham MP (Labour, Stockton North) Bill Esterson MP (Labour, Sefton Central) Pat Glass MP (Labour, North West Durham) Charlotte Leslie MP (Conservative, Bristol North West) Siobhain McDonagh MP (Labour, Mitcham and Morden) Ian Mearns MP (Labour, Gateshead) Chris Skidmore MP (Conservative, Kingswood) Mr David Ward MP (Liberal Democrat, Bradford East) Craig Whittaker MP (Conservative, Calder Valley)

Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk

Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/education-committee

Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Dr Lynn Gardner (Clerk), Katy Stout (Second Clerk), Martin Smith (Committee Specialist), Ameet Chudasama (Senior Committee Assistant), Caroline McElwee (Committee Assistant), and Sarah Priddy (Committee Support Assistant)

Jake Anders was a Committee Specialist on the staff during the inquiry.

Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Education Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6181; the Committee’s e-mail address is [email protected]

Witnesses

Wednesday 19 June 2013 Page

Sir David Carter, Executive Principal, Cabot Learning Federation, Bristol, Peter Maunder, Headteacher, Oldway Schoool, Paignton, Mervyn Wilson, Chief Executive, The Co-operative College, and Leo Winkley, Headmaster, St Peter’s School, York Ev 1

Dr John Dunford, Education Consultant, Dr Caroline Kenny, Research Officer, SSRU, Institute of Education, London, James O’Shaughnessy, former Deputy Director, Policy Exchange, and David Sims, Research Director, National Foundation for Educational Research Ev 11

Wednesday 3 July 2013

Professor David Woods CBE, former Principal National Challenge Adviser for England, Professor St George Berwick CBE, Chief Executive, Challenge Partners, Sean Harford, Regional Director for East of England, Ofsted, and Kirston Nelson, Assistant Director of Education, Wigan Council Ev 22

Lord Nash, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education, and Andrew McCully, Director General, Infrastructure and Funding, Department for Education Ev 32

List of printed written evidence

1 Cabot Learning Federation (CLF) Ev43 2 Department for Education Ev46 3 St Peter’s School, York Ev 57 4 Challenge Partners Ev 59 5 Dr Caroline Kenny, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education Ev 64 6 Policy Exchange Ev 71 7 National Foundation for Educational Research Ev 74 8 Local Government Association (LGA) Ev 78 9 Dr John Dunford Ev 79 10 Ofsted Ev 80 11 Peter Maunder Ev 84 12 The Co-operative College Ev 86

List of additional written evidence

(published in the virtual Volume II on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/ educom)

1 Professor Mel Ainscow, Centre for Equity in Education, University of Manchester Ev w1 2 Culm Co-operative Learning Partnerships Ev w4 3 Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) Ev w6 4 Nottingham City Council (P Whitby—Education Partnership Strategy Manager) Ev w9 5 Girls’ Day School Trust Ev w13 6 Tavistock College Ev w18 7 Northampton Town Area Improvement Partnership (NTAIP) Ev w20 8 Rugby School Ev w22 9 National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) Ev w25 10 Director of Partnerships at King’s College School, Wimbledon Ev w26 11 Liverpool Learning Partnership Ev w29 12 GL Education Group Ev w31 13 National Union of Teachers (NUT) Ev w33 14 SCiPS, Education and Media Ev w38 15 Collaborative Schools Ltd (SCL) Ev w40 16 Myscience Ev w49 17 Greater Manchester Partnership Ev w52 18 NASUWT Ev w56 19 National Association of School Partnerships Ev w61 20 South End Education Trust Ev w64 21 Cllr Ralph Berry, Bradford Ev w67 22 pfeg (Personal Finance Education Group) Ev w71 23 Kent County Council Ev w73 24 Schools Co-operative Society South West Ev w76 25 ATL Ev w78 26 Co-operative UK Ev w82 27 The Brigshaw Co-operative Trust Ev w84 28 Tiverton High School Ev w85 29 Independent Schools Council Ev w86 30 National Governors Association Ev w90 31 Devon County Council Ev w95 32 The Dover Federation for the Arts Multi Academy Trust and the Duke of York’s Royal Military School Ev w97 33 Titus Alexander Ev w100 34 London Leadership Strategy Ev w102 35 David Weston, Chief Executive, on behalf of the Teacher Development Trust Ev w107 36 Wellington College Ev w109 37 North Tyneside Learning Trust Ev w111

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [SO] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w1

Written evidence

Written evidence submitted by Professor Mel Ainscow, Centre for Equity in Education, University of Manchester Summary The evidence presented in this paper is drawn from the experience of the Greater Manchester Challenge, a three-year project, which involved over 1,100 schools, in ten local authorities. Building on the findings of earlier research, including ideas developed through the earlier London Challenge, the approach involved networking and collaboration within and between schools. This provided the basis for what has been described as a “self improving school system”. In summary, the strategies developed within Greater Manchester were as follows: 1: Realising untapped potential. We found that schools have considerable expertise they can use to improve themselves—the development of new working relationships helped to mobilise this potential. 2: Using evidence as a catalyst. A sharp analysis of data led to the identification of issues that needed urgent attention and the human resources to support improvement efforts in relation to these issues—this had to be responsive to changing circumstances. 3: School-to-school collaboration. There was strong evidence that school partnerships were the most powerful means of fostering improvements, particularly in challenging circumstances— this had to be coordinated and monitored sensitively. 4: System leadership. Many successful head teachers were motivated by the idea of taking on improvement roles with other schools—their involvement had to be encouraged, monitored and supported. 5: Rethinking the roles of local authorities. Staff from local authorities had a role in monitoring developments, identifying priorities for action and brokering collaboration—this required new thinking and practices. All of this has significant implications for national policy makers. In order to make use of the power of collaboration as a means of achieving both excellence and equity in our schools, they need to foster greater flexibility at the local level in order that practitioners have the space to analyse their particular circumstances and determine priorities accordingly. This means that policy makers must recognise that the details of policy implementation are not amenable to central regulation. Rather, these have to be dealt with by those who are close to and, therefore, in a better position to understand local contexts.

School Partnerships and Cooperation: Lessons from the Greater Manchester Challenge 1. In recent years, my colleagues and I have carried out a series of studies that have generated considerable evidence that school-to-school collaboration can strengthen improvement processes by adding to the range of expertise made available (see references below). Together, these studies indicate that school-to-school collaboration has an enormous potential for fostering system-wide improvement, particularly in challenging urban contexts. More specifically, they show how collaboration between schools can provide an effective means of solving immediate problems, such as staffing shortages; how it can have a positive impact in 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 expectations and attainment in schools that have had a record of low achievement. There is also evidence here that collaboration can help to reduce the polarization of schools according to their position in “league tables”, to the particular benefit of those students who seem marginalised at the edges of the system, and whose performance and attitudes cause increasing concern. 2. For the most part, these studies focused on situations where schools had been given short-term financial incentives linked to the demonstration of collaborative planning and activity. Nevertheless, they convince us this approach can be a powerful catalyst for change, although it does not represent an easy option, particularly in policy contexts within which competition and choice continue to be the main policy drivers. 3. The most convincing evidence about the power of schools working together comes from our recent involvement in the Greater Manchester Challenge. This three-year project, which involved over 1,100 schools in ten local authorities, had a government investment of around £50million. The decision to invest such a large budget reflected a concern regarding educational standards in the city region, particularly amongst children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. The approach adopted was influenced by an earlier initiative, the London Challenge. 4. After three years the impact was significant in respect to overall improvements in test and examination results, and, indeed, the way the education system carries out its business. So, for example, Greater Manchester primary schools now outperform national averages on the tests taken by all children in England. And, in the public examinations taken by all young people at 16, in 2011 secondary schools in Greater Manchester improved faster than schools nationally, with the schools serving the most disadvantaged communities making three times more improvement than schools across the country. During the same period, the number of schools cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w2 Education Committee: Evidence

below the Government’s floor standard decreased more than it did in other areas of the country. In addition, the proportion of “good” and “outstanding” schools, as determined by the national inspection system increased, despite the introduction of a more challenging framework. 5. The overall approach of the Greater Manchester Challenge emerged from a detailed analysis of the local context, using both statistical data and local intelligence provided by stakeholders. This drew attention to areas of concern and also helped to pinpoint a range of human resources that could be mobilized in order to support improvement efforts. Recognising the potential of these resources, it was decided that networking and collaboration should be the key strategies for strengthening the overall improvement capacity of the system. More specifically, this involved a series of inter-connected activities for “moving knowledge around”. 6. In an attempt to engage all schools in processes of networking and collaboration, Families of Schools were set up, using a data system that groups between 12 and 20 schools on the basis of the prior attainment of their students and their socio-economic home backgrounds. The strength of this approach is that it partners schools that serve similar populations whilst, at the same time, encouraging partnerships amongst schools that are not in direct competition with one another because they do not serve the same neighbourhoods. Led by head teachers, the Families of Schools proved to be successful in strengthening collaborative processes within the city region, although the impact was varied. 7. In terms of schools working in highly disadvantaged contexts, evidence from the Challenge suggests that school-to-school partnerships are the most powerful means of fostering improvements. Most notably, the Keys to Success programme led to striking improvements in the performance of some 200 schools facing the most challenging circumstances. There is also evidence that the progress that these schools made helped to trigger improvement across the system. A common feature of almost all of these interventions was that progress was achieved through carefully matched pairings (or, sometimes, trios) of schools that cut across social “boundaries” of various kinds, including those that separate schools that are in different local authorities. In this way, expertise that was previously trapped in particular contexts was made more widely available. 8. Another effective strategy to facilitate the movement of expertise was provided through the creation of various types of hub schools. So, for example, some of the hubs provided support for other schools regarding ways of supporting students with English as an additional language. Similarly, so-called “teaching schools” providing professional development programmes focused on bringing about improvements in classroom practice. Other hub schools offered support in relation to particular subject areas, and in responding to groups of potentially vulnerable groups, such as those categorised as having special educational needs. In this latter context, a further significant strategy involved new roles for special schools in supporting developments in the mainstream. 9. Significantly, we found that such collaborative arrangements can have a positive impact on the learning of students in all of the participating schools. This is an important finding in that it draws attention to a way of strengthening relatively low performing schools that can, at the same time, help to foster wider improvements in the system. It also offers a convincing argument as to why relatively strong schools should support other schools. Put simply, the evidence is that by helping others you help yourself. 10. Whilst increased collaboration of this sort is vital as a strategy for developing more effective ways of working, the experience of Greater Manchester showed that it is not enough. The essential additional ingredient is an engagement with data that can bring an element of mutual challenge to such collaborative processes. We found that data was particularly essential when partnering schools, since collaboration is at its most powerful where partner schools are carefully matched and know what they are trying to achieve. Data also matters in order that schools go beyond cosy relationships that have no impact on outcomes. Consequently, schools need to base their relationships on evidence about each other’s strengths and weaknesses, so that they can challenge each other to improve. A team of expert advisers had a central role here, working alongside senior school staff in carrying out the analysis and, where necessary, mobilizing support from other schools. 11. In order to facilitate this kind of contextual analysis, strategies and frameworks were devised to help schools to support one another in carrying out reviews. In the primary sector, this involved colleagues from another school acting as critical friends to internally driven review processes; whilst in secondary schools, subject departments took part in “deep dives”, where skilled specialists from another school visited in order to observe and analyse practice, and promote focused improvement activities. The power of these approaches is in the way they provide teachers with opportunities to have strategic conversations with colleagues from another school. 12. The powerful impact of the collaborative strategies developed in the Greater Manchester Challenge points to ways in which the processes used within individual schools can be deepened and, therefore, strengthened. This requires an emphasis on mutual critique, within schools and between schools, based on an engagement with shared data. This, in turn, requires strong collective commitment from senior school staff and a willingness to share responsibility for system reform. 13. The work of the Challenge can be seen to have involved a series of interconnected strategies that fostered stronger social capital. In particular, these strategies helped to break down social barriers within schools, between schools, and between schools and other stakeholders, in order to facilitate the sorts of mutual benefit that I have described. However, it is important to recognize that, within the context of changing and, at times, cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w3

contradictory national policies, the gains made through such approaches were hard won, and remained fragile and easily lost.

14. Here, continuing tensions regarding priorities and preferred ways of working between national and local policy makers, and, indeed, between schools and local authorities, were factors that continued to create barriers to progress. So, for example, those near to central government often remained pre-occupied with achieving short-term gains in test and examination scores in ways that can create barriers to efforts for promoting sustainable improvements. Coupled with this was a mistrust of local authorities—the staff of which were sometimes seen as part of the problem, rather than part of the solution—and doubts about the need to have separate strategies that ﬁt particular contexts.

15. The creation of education systems where improvement is driven by schools themselves, and that involves cooperation between schools, and between schools, begs questions regarding the roles of local authorities. Indeed, it raises the possibility that the involvement of a middle level administrative structure may not even be necessary. The authors of an inﬂuential McKinsey report, having analysed “how the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better”, express their surprise at the critical role that what they call the “mediating layer” plays between school delivery and central government. This leads them to conclude that sustaining improvements in the longer term requires “integration and intermediation” across each level of the system, “from the classroom to the superintendent or minister’s ofﬁce”.

16. The authors of the McKinsey report go on to suggest that the speciﬁc functions the mediating layer plays are: providing targeted support to schools; acting as a buffer between central government and the schools, while interpreting and communicating the improvement objectives in order to manage any resistance to change; and enhancing the collaborative exchange between schools, by facilitating the sharing of best practices, helping them to support each other, share learning, and standardise practices.

17. Our experience in Greater Manchester suggests that local authority staff can have an important role to play, not least in acting as the conscience of the system—making sure that all children and young people are getting a fair deal within an increasingly diverse system of education. In order to do this, they need to know the big picture about what is happening in their communities, identifying priorities for action and brokering collaboration. I experienced many situations where local authority colleagues found these changes challenging, particularly during a time of reducing budgets. Nevertheless, I remain committed to the view that local coordination—the presence of an effective “mediating layer”—is essential.

18. Finally, all of this has significant implications for national policy makers. In order to make use of the power of collaboration as a means of achieving both excellence and equity in our schools, they need to foster greater flexibility at the local level in order that practitioners have the space to analyse their particular circumstances and determine priorities accordingly. This means that policy makers must recognise that the details of policy implementation are not amenable to central regulation. Rather, these have to be dealt with by those who are close to and, therefore, in a better position to understand local contexts. They should be trusted to act in the best interests of the children and young people they serve, and encouraged to work together, pooling their knowledge and experience, for the benefit of students and teachers alike.

BackgroundReading inRelation to thisSubmission

Ainscow, M (2012). Moving knowledge around: strategies for fostering equity within educational systems. Journal of Educational Change. 13(3), 289–310

Ainscow, M, Dyson, A, Goldrick, S and West, M (2012). Developing Equitable Education Systems. London: Routledge

Ainscow, M and West, M (eds.) (2006). Improving urban schools: Leadership and collaboration. Open University Press

Hutchings, M, Hollingworth, S, Mansaray, A, Rose, R and Greenwood, C (2012). Research report DFE-RR215: Evaluation of the City Challenge programme. London: Department for Education

Mourshed, M, Chijioke, C and Barber, M (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. London: McKinsey & Company October 2013 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w4 Education Committee: Evidence

Written evidence submitted by Culm Co-operative Learning Partnership Executive Summary My name is Julie Phelan and I am the Headteacher of Cullompton Community College in Devon. I am part of a group of schools currently consulting on conversion to Co-operative Trust Status. The proposed implementation date is 1 September 2013. The proposed name of the foundation will be Culm Co-operative Learning Partnership and the trust does not already act as a foundation for any foundation or voluntary school. The proposed members of the trust are: — Clyst Hydon Primary School (2 Trustees). — Cullompton Community College (2 Trustees). — St Andrew’s Primary School (2 Trustees). — Willowbank Primary School (2 Trustees). — Uplowman C of E (VC) Primary School (1 Trustee). — Bicton College (1 Trustee). — Devon County Council (1 Trustee). — The Co-operative Movement, initially represented by the Co-operative College (1 Trustee). In addition, learners at each of the schools, parents, staff, members of the local community and local community organisations will be able to become members of the Trust. The Trust will have a Stakeholder Forum composed of members, which will be able to appoint two or three of the Trust’s trustees. As the Trust develops, it will consider other schools joining the Trust. The rationale for acquiring the Trust, the contribution it will make, and the direction it will provide to the schools can be summarised as follows: Our particular priority is to work better together to improve opportunities for success; success for pupils, staff and families. We will do this by: — Sharing good practice and developing opportunities for leadership at all levels. — Talking to each other and exchanging ideas in an open way. — Developing networks so that everyone feels part of the larger community of schools. — Finding out about what happens at each phase of education to help pupils make sense of progression from one stage to another and to enable continuity and preparation for lifelong learning. Key aims of our Trust are to work better together in order to: — Improve opportunities for success. — Create communities where all citizens are equally valued. — Learn from, and with, each other. — Provide more varied opportunities for pupils. — Unlock potential through collaboration. — Increase parent and community involvement. — Develop mutually supportive networks and reduce isolation and duplication. — Enhance dialogue and understanding between different phases of education and so improve progression and continuity for pupils. — Prepare pupils for their lives as healthy, creative, skilled and aspirational citizens. — Encourage pupils and adults to be outward looking and forward looking, embracing innovation, initiatives and new approaches. — Remain part of the maintained sector and part of the Devon family of schools. The schools acquiring the Trust already work with other schools in the local area. This work will continue so that the entire area, and not just the schools acquiring the Trust, will offer community cohesion and development for all our local communities as well as continuing to contribute to the diversity of educational provision in the area.

Paragraph One—Background The schools consulting on becoming the Culm Cooperative Learning Partnership began by considering all forms of school partnership as part of a Local Learning Community exercise which started in September 2011. Sixteen schools form the Culm Valley Learning Community, including two secondary schools (one of which is an academy, the other a community school), and 14 primary schools. At the start of the process two primary schools were academies, federated with each other but within a larger federation extending outside the learning cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w5

community. In September 2011 all the schools in the Learning Community decided to jointly find out more about the various forms of partnership and alternative structures for organisation in order to be forward looking and respond positively to the changing educational landscape. In pairs or groups of three or four the Headteachers in the LC visited other schools and partnerships in Devon, and beyond, as part of a fact finding mission. Information from visits was written up and circulated within the LC. A conference was arranged to bring all the ideas together for Headteachers and Governors. The different forms of organisation explored included Cooperative Trusts and Academies (stand alone, convertor, sponsored and multi-academy chains). Following the conference schools decided upon various directions. The secondary academy joined with a local primary school to form its own multi academy chain, another primary school converted to join a primary academy chain already in existence in Devon, three primary schools formed one federation, while another two formed their own federation. A number of schools expressed an interest in finding out more about Cooperative Trusts. After further research and consultation the community secondary school and three community primary schools, together with a VC primary school, decided to move forward to consult on conversion to Cooperative Trust status and partnered with a local FE college, the Local Authority and the Cooperative Group to. If successful the launch of this Cooperative Trust will be 1 September 2013. The schools/partners moving forward on Cooperative Trust status consultation felt the need to work co-operatively under a formalised structure primarily to improve opportunities and outcomes for our children given the current educational climate of diminishing LA support. The particular advantages of Cooperative Trust partnership were seen to be: — Working within a set of cooperative principles and values in which we all believed. — Greater benefits (as outlined in the executive summary) for staff, children and families by working more closely and effectively together for educational purposes, to strengthen the community and for greater effectiveness in procurement and commissioning. — Maintaining the autonomy of each school and each governing body, including individual school control of own budgets whilst benefitting from partnership.

Paragraph Two Incentives to form meaningful and lasting partnerships Unlike conversion to Academy status there was no immediate financial benefit to convert to Cooperative trust status. However, the consulting schools were guided by the benefits described above. Some questioned whether partnership could be delivered effectively through the existing Learning Community arrangements. The feeling was that a formal conversion to Trust status entailed a greater commitment to self responsibility allied to principled and joint ownership of the Trust and that ultimately it was up to the participants to build the partnership and make it work. This was especially true as former structures of centralised LA support were eroded or allocated to external providers. We have touched upon the tensions between partnership and competition but for the sake of the community in which we live we believe that it is better to have several good schools sharing ideas and ensuring continuity of learning in the local community and between phases rather than operating in isolation as insular institutions.

Paragraph Three Driving school improvement The consulting schools and partners have a particular interest in driving up school improvement, especially in developing leadership and management and sharing quality ﬁrst teaching and learning. We see strength in school to school support tailored to the personal needs of our community motivated by choice and mutual interest rather than from imposed sponsorship. We are positive and forward looking and anticipate that we will welcome additional partners in future and that we will be a formidable force for change and progress in education as the partnership develops. We will be members of a wider community of Cooperative Trusts in the South West, Nationally and Internationally and, as such, able to beneﬁt from wider good practice at the cutting edge of education.

Paragraph Four Conclusion As the CCLP is in the consulting stage we are unable to report upon the actual strengths and weaknesses of being a Cooperative Trust partnership in practice. However, we are aware of the potential for beneﬁts and tensions. Even so, we anticipate that we will form a successful partnership because that is what we want. We have seized the initiative to work together and therefore have made a commitment to make it successful because the future of our rural community depends upon it. October 2013 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w6 Education Committee: Evidence

Written evidence submitted by the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) 1. The Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) represents over 17,000 heads, principals, deputies, vice-principals, assistant heads, business managers and other senior staff of maintained and independent schools and colleges throughout the UK. ASCL has members in more than 90% of secondary schools and colleges of all types, responsible for the education of more than four million young people. This places the association in a unique position to consider this issue from the viewpoint of the leaders of secondary schools and of colleges. 2. ASCL welcomes this inquiry into an issue in which the association has long had a strong interest. The inquiry is timely given that there is a fundamental and systematic change taking place very rapidly in the schools sector as most schools are moved away from local authority ownership into academy status.

Summary 3. ASCL strongly supports partnerships between schools and colleges of all kinds. It has persuasive evidence that collaborative working improves the performance of the education system as whole, as well as the particular institutions involved in a partnership. 4. There are a number of policy drivers that work against this. ASCL recommends: — that there be an attempt to reach consensus about the proper balance between competition and collaboration, — that policy in this respect should be more consistent, over time and between different initiatives, and — that disincentives to partnership working should as far as possible be removed and replaced by strong incentives to collaborate.

General Remarks 5. Some five years ago ASCL conducted extensive research into this topic, which resulted in the publication of a book that is commended to the committee.1 Although the political and regulatory landscape has changed, the underlying principles have not, and many of the issues raised remain current. 6. With regard to partnership there is a sceptical school of thought, within schools and within government, that it involves more effort than it yields in return. The evidence that ASCL discovered is conclusive: partnership does add substantial value: — It makes for more effective teaching and learning. — It broadens opportunities. — It enables faster policy implementation of new ideas and policies. — It contributes to efficiency. — And it helps to raise achievement and attainment. 7. Collaboration is not a panacea; its benefits are sometimes exaggerated, and added value is not always spread evenly across all members of a partnership. However, the full potential of collaboration is not being realised, and ASCL remains committed to promoting partnerships between schools and colleges of all kinds. 8. Part of the problem is related to the inevitable tension between collaboration and competition. This is a creative and positive tension: schools and colleges in practice do both, and, as in other walks of life, can strike a balance between them. But finding that point of balance is not helped by it being moved unpredictably, as policy shifts between emphasising one extreme or the other. This is bound to happen to some extent between one government and the next, but can also happen simultaneously, with conflicting messages coming from different arms of government. 9. It would be helpful to approach some degree of consensus, across and within political parties, about where this balance should be struck, and the present inquiry may assist with that. 10. ASCL would argue that under this and the previous government there have been and remain too many disincentives to partnership working, and too little support for it. 11. The accountability regime works strongly against partnership. In particular, both Ofsted reports and performance tables are focussed very strongly on performance at the level of the individual school or college, and ignore partnerships and the performance of the education system in a local area. 12. A particular problem is the criteria being applied to individuals or institutions leading certain kinds of partnership. In particular recognition of teaching schools and national leaders of education (NLEs) can be withdrawn because of minor variations in results (for example a “blip” in English GCSE results that no rational assessment would consider to represent a catastrophic loss of quality) causing a nascent partnership to be broken up. The possibility of such “de-designation” happening before the value of a partnership has been realised is a strong disincentive to engaging in these types of work in the first place. 1 Achieving more together, Robert Hill, ASCL, 2008. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w7

13. Schools and colleges themselves have a responsibility to practice the disciplines of partnership working. What is effective in building successful and effective collaboration is known; the challenge is to commit to the application of that learning. ASCL encourages its members, as the leaders of schools and colleges, to model collaborative behaviour: They should encourage intensive networking between staff at all levels across the partnerships in which their school or college is involved. They should have an open approach to sharing data with partners. And they should realise the huge potential to be gained from organising professional development on a collaborative basis. Many school and college leaders are already doing these things and thus demonstrating their leadership not only of their institution, but also of the system. 14. But there are exceptions, and there are strong pressures, often coming from governing bodies, to stay within the bounds of the one institution, especially if there is any doubt about the maintenance of performance table position or Ofsted grade. There is a need to provide real incentives to collaborate, or else partnership working will be limited by such pressures, and by self-interest and inertia. 15. There is a need to be patient and persistent in pursing partnership. Collaboration is not a quick ﬁx but a strategy that proves itself in the long run. It takes time to build the trust that enables partnership to go deep: to learn how to make the most of each other’s strengths and confront one’s own and each other’s weaknesses. This is an age when the demand is for instant success; partnership working does not deliver that—but it can provide improvement that is deep-rooted and sustainable.

WithReference to your Specific Questions The differing forms of school partnership and cooperation, and whether they have particular advantages and disadvantages 16. First, it is important not to be fixated on a limited number of named types of partnership. Schools and colleges are each involved in a number of partnerships and collaborative arrangement of varying degrees of formality, for various purposes, some more significant to them than others. 17. Likewise one should not forget the possibility of partnerships that cross sector boundaries. There are a number of useful partnerships that link state schools with schools in the independent sector, and with colleges in the FE and sixth form college sectors. 18. Thirdly, not all partnerships have one or more successful schools assisting or supporting weaker colleagues. Some particularly successful partnerships are built around explicit mutuality and equality. And even when one school is manifestly stronger, it often reports that it nevertheless learnt from the school that it was supporting. 19. Partnerships can be more or less close, range from soft to hard, be short or long term, and be focussed on a specific issue or be quite general. This makes for a very complex picture, too complex to analyse here; again the committee is referred to the ASCL research publication mentioned in paragraph 5 above. 20. In our experience the most successful partnerships are those where there are shared values, at least about the issues being addressed but ideally more widely; those that are between essentially equal participants seeking mutual support and improvement; and those that form “bottom up”, where the initiative is at the school level and the participants enter freely. Where schools are forced to collaborate, especially with partners with very different institutional cultures, then the collaboration tends to be token, and the benefit slight. 21. Academy chains are often touted as the way forward in the present situation, and they certainly have a place, but are not by any means a universally applicable answer. They also vary very considerably in size, in their mode of operation, and in the extent to which they promote genuine collaboration. Those which operate more as a federation of schools can be effective models for collaboration and peer-learning, though many have not realised that potential. 22. Other chains have adopted a “supermarket” model in which the approach of a particular school or head teacher is replicated across other schools by formula; the heads of the individual schools become branch managers. This is not a collaborative approach, and will stifle the creativity of local school leaders across the chain. It can be superficially effective in turning round some failing schools, but is more likely to lead to rapid but temporary improvements in performance table figures than sustainable improvement. Especially if the chain becomes large it is likely to lead to a fixation on figures—financial or related to accountability—to the detriment of the needs of individual students and local communities. 23. The alliances which are growing up around teaching schools have many of the right characteristics, and many school leaders are finding them to be of value. The problem mentioned in paragraph 12 above applies here, though, as the criteria for being a teaching school are inflexible and exclude some schools that would be able to make a contribution, whilst others have faced de-designation because of relatively minor worsening of their performance table indicators. 24. School leaders in the London area feel that the recent London Mayor’s education initiative, although flawed, has some interesting opportunities for collaboration. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w8 Education Committee: Evidence

25. We should remember the possibility of cooperation between state schools and the independent sector, and between schools and the college sector. In both cases there are some examples of good practice, and valuable work has been done. This includes the sponsorship of academies but is by no means limited to that model, and some of the best examples have very different origins and modes of working together. In both cases there is scope for much more such collaboration, though incentives may need to be put in place.

How highly performing schools could better be encouraged to cooperate with others

26. The present Secretary of State early in this government talked about making the English school system self-improving. Using successful approaches in good schools to support others must play a key role if this aim is to be achieved. There is clearly a balance to be struck between autonomy and market forces on the one hand and incentivising partnership and mutual support on the other. This balance is not yet right.

27. Too often “highly performing” means, having a large proportion of able, well-supported, middle-class children. It is hard to see what incentive there is for such schools to involve themselves with schools with the opposite characteristics, and many would have relatively little to offer. Collaboration and mutual improvement does not necessarily need to involve a strong school helping a weaker one—see paragraph 18 above. This also applies when one of the partners is a college or an independent school, which in effective partnerships learn from as well as help their partner schools.

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

28. There are incentives, but perhaps they are insufﬁcient at the moment. There is strong encouragement for schools to sponsor less successful schools in mini-academy groups, which is one strategy, and there are schemes like national leaders of education (NLEs) which incentivise successful leaders to contribute to system improvement. There are teaching schools, which, though they are not well funded to do so, form networks around them that are beginning to work in some parts of the country.

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

29. Autonomy and collaboration are both needed, so these tensions cannot be resolved; rather they need to be held in balance. The tension then has the potential to be creative and positive. There is a risk when one dimension is too heavily emphasised at the expense of the other. At present the balance needs some redressing in the direction of incentivising collaboration, particularly the more mutual forms mentioned in paragraph 20 above.

Whether converter academies’ requirements to support other schools, included in their funding agreements, are sufﬁcient and are effectively policed

30. They are not successfully policed at all. Some academy leaders are clear that they have done little in this respect, and there are some strong disincentives. Quite apart from the general disincentives mentioned above in paragraphs 11 and 14 some converter academies are hard pressed ﬁnancially, and not all are outstandingly successful schools with the capacity to do this work.

Whether academies sponsored by another school receive sufﬁcient support from their sponsor

31. This varies greatly. There are cases of outstanding sponsor arrangements, and there are others where the sponsoring school has entered into the arrangement for reasons of its own and has provided very little of practical value. This is not a reason to abandon this model altogether, but there is clearly a need to set up better systems to ensure that it works more consistently.

Whether school partnerships drive effective school improvement

32. Again, they can do, and this is seen as a way forward. There are many local and contextual factors, and it depends on well-judged decisions at the outset about capacity and the needs of the sponsored school, and also on accountability measures. There are a number of different models that work in different circumstances, and the focus at this point should be on encouraging innovation, monitoring and sharing. See some of the general principles in paragraph 20 above, and in Achieving More Together.2

33. Where there is the greatest need for improvement and the number of schools is relatively small then the best approach may be for there to be a single cohesive senior leadership structure with hard-edged accountability and an executive head who is tasked to drive the improvement and accepts the accountability for doing so. In other contexts more or less close federations or confederations can be appropriate models. 2 Op cit. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w9

34. More research needs to be done in this exciting and relatively new area, which should take into account the impact of different educational approaches on people’s lives, not just whilst they are at school but beyond that into their adult lives. It would also be useful to compare partnership models and practices elsewhere in the world with those emerging here in Britain. 35. This should not be aimed at ﬁnding some “best” model—different approaches are emerging to suit different circumstances. But there is more to be learnt about the best working practices for effective cooperation that can lead to low input but high impact on school improvement.

Whether there are any additional upsides or downsides for highly performing schools supporting others through partnerships 36. School leaders are naturally ﬂattered at being approached to take on a sponsoring deal, and most have a desire to help. But it is very easy to underestimate the strain on the supporting school. It is clearly important not to simply arrive at a situation where the sponsoring school is weaker to the same extent that the sponsored school is stronger. There are examples of sponsors overreaching themselves to the detriment of a formerly very successful school or college. While sponsoring is a good idea and a useful strategy, there are hard questions to ask about capacity, especially where resources are limited.

Conclusion 37. Partnership should be more strongly supported than is currently the case, as this would help to improve our education system as a whole, raise achievement across the board, and narrow the gap between those young people achieving most and least. 38. It would be helpful for there to be a political consensus about the proper balance between competition and collaboration, leading to policy in this respect being more consistent, over time and between different initiatives. 39. The disincentives to partnership working should as far as possible be removed and replaced by strong incentives to collaborate. 40. I hope that this is of value to your consultation, ASCL is willing to be further consulted and to assist in any way that it can. October 2013

Written evidence submitted by Nottingham City Council Prepared by: Pat Whitby (Education Partnership Strategy Manager) Summary There is a great advantage in the Local Authority (LA) role as a facilitator, broker and mediator in building a self- improving system of school partnerships which schools and academies own and drive. In an Ofsted HMI good practice visit in January 2013 the role of the LA as the facilitator and broker in the partnership approach to school improvement was identified as strength in improving the outcomes for children and young people. Evidence was collected from system leaders in school and academy partnerships who describe the various types of effective partnerships they work within. Seven different types of partnership and some advantages and disadvantages are described. The incentives for encouraging high performing schools to co-operate with others cover range of suggestions from a duty to co-operate to the moral purpose to support all children and young people. The Local Authority is in a strong position to reduce potential tension between school/academy partnerships because it holds local knowledge, history, personal relationships, and soft data and can influence difficult issues. It would be possible to lessen the impact if schools were viewed by DfE and OFSTED as having joint responsibility for the all young people in a given geographical. School partnerships drive effective school improvement where there is clear definition of the “improvement” and a clear agreement of each partner role in the achievement of the agreed outcomes. Although converter academies’ requirements to support other schools, is included in funding agreements there is a lack of clarity about what is actually required as a minimum. If there was a minimum requirement this could be measured rather than policed as part of “desk top” evidence gathering.

1. The differing forms of school partnership and cooperation, and whether they have particular advantages and disadvantages The supporting role of the LA in each partnership is negotiated and enables an overview of school improvement provision so it can be responsive and proactive. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w10 Education Committee: Evidence

In consultation with some school and academy leaders in the city the following types of partnership and their perceived advantages and disadvantages were identified: — In a transition partnership of schools that feed into the same secondary school felt that the advantage is in the similarity created by being geographically close and socially similar and the disadvantage of potential for competition over some pupils. — In a collaboration with statutory power which has been very effective for both schools in terms of offering opportunities for outreach support and deployment across the partnership. Initially more formal the collaboration has allowed a partnership to flourish without either party feeling “tied” because it is responsive to time, place and context. — Teaching School Alliances have the advantage of enormous potential for increased school to school support, with potentially bigger impact than academy sponsorship. The disadvantage being that membership of the alliance is voluntary so not all schools are, currently involved. — In a company/trust arrangement which allows greater flexibility for securing additional funding and working with a wider range of partners. The advantages are in greater flexibility and the disadvantage of the risk of a widening of focus and a reduction of support for the core business of schools. — In an Education Improvement Partnership which chooses to join forces and is truly collaborative, advantages in sharing good practice and work together for the wider community. A disadvantage is too much rigidity as partnerships should be fluid at times so that they can be based on interest and need ie a group coming together to work for a limited amount of time on one particular shared focus to produce an agreed outcome. — For a National Support School there are advantages in delivering direct and clear assistance plus continuously self-reminding, keeping up to date with national agenda, learning from one another. Disadvantages of leadership capacity if a number of schools need support at a particular time. — An effective partnership of NLEs, LLEs and consultant Headteachers who are deployed in partner schools to challenge and prevent the slide into under performance. — Formalised school partnership through a charitable company limited by guarantee has enormous potential to delivery good quality school to school support through an agreed business plan. The major advantage of such legally constituted arrangements is that expectations and commitments are must be fully articulated and with such certainty, shared financial commitments are more safely made. The disadvantage may be in sustainability with national and local policy changes.

2. How highly performing schools could better be encouraged to cooperate with others

The important words here are “cooperate with others”. Much successful work has been done by high performing schools supporting other schools and the following are suggestions: — Appealing to the goal of providing a “good” education for all children. Staff and leaders in schools always learn from one another through self-examination and self-evaluation plus often in schools in difficulty there are excellent practitioners compensating for others. — That there is a moral purpose to share good practice and a shared sense of responsibility for whole community. — A shared understanding that the research is clear that high performing schools benefit from supporting schools in challenging circumstances. — Financial inducements to meet the costs of supporting other schools. The most significant costs relate top release of high-quality staff, with the associated risk of damaging the high-performing school’s own performance. — Effective funding programme to release key staff and back fill effectively—ie to facilitate floating staff to cover absence of key staff. It is the outstanding teachers who need to support partnership working in a variety of ways—they need to be replaced by “outstanding” teachers and this is difficult to secure when done on an “ad-hoc” basis. — A pre-requisite of an overall “Outstanding” grade by Ofsted could be evidence of having had a measurable impact on supporting other schools. — High performing schools could be encouraged to engage in such cooperation by receiving credit for so doing through inspection arrangements. Conversely, schools failing to take a full part in such cooperation could be criticised for doing so. — By increasing the capacity to do so and making the whole exercise more valuable to the high performing school. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w11

— Using models from other organisations such as “Leading Edge” which has an excellent cooperative model. — By providing curriculum guidance or support for improved teaching. — By being active and equal partners in Fair Access arrangements or participating in managed move arrangements and modelling good practice.

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

The LA is accountable, through its role in being the champion of educational excellence, for the achievement of all children and young people. Incentives for securing the self improving schools system over a three year funding cycle would enable proactive development of support for school/academy partnerships moving all schools to good. Currently incentive funding is accessed according to a supporting schools current capacity. Longer term funding would enable a more planned and effective approach and the establishment of lasting professional relationships.

Incentives to do this are limited at present and could be signiﬁcantly improved if there was and explicit expectation from Government that funding should be made available to those schools who demonstrate commitment to partnership activity.

This funding should be ring fenced for the purpose and schools held accountable for outcomes achieved. Another incentive would be for clear expectations that this is required in the OFSTED framework.

Incentivising is complex as so much depends on the vision of the school leadership and governance. In small groups with no legally binding agreement sharing strengths and supporting areas for development is much easier through partnership working. If this is beneﬁcial for children and families in our communities then that is, and should be, sufﬁcient incentive.

If the Department could take steps to make it straighter forward for Partnerships to jointly employ teachers and support staff this would make Partnerships working signiﬁcantly more viable. A key improvement would be to allow a legally constituted partnership, such as a joint not for proﬁt company formed by schools, to have easy access to the Teacher’s Pensions Scheme and the Local Government Pensions Scheme.

In relation to providing services to schools, including advice and support for PE and Off-site visits, school swimming and transport, and curriculum related programmes and CPD. Schools have incentives if they see the value in terms of more efﬁcient delivery of Services, “value for money” in terms of time or ﬁnancial savings or access to high quality advice and support.

4. If and how the potential tension between school partnerships and cooperation, and school choice and competition can be resolved

The Local Authority holds local knowledge, history, personal relationships, and soft data and can influence difficult issues involving academies and schools partnership. This knowledge can be used to reduce potential tension, promote partnership working and co-operation. The Local Authority is also involved in setting the vision and priorities for the area and able to use influence to shape the system, in identifying and filling gaps in provision of schools and services and facilitating partnerships with stakeholders and agencies.

An example of this being an effective approach is in promoting co-operation to effectively use the School Sport Premium Funding: In Nottingham we are fortunate in having established a School Sport Strategy Group which oversees the co-ordination of school sport provision through a Strategy Manager and Ofﬁcer. This has enabled us to continue developing focused support and partnership working across many schools and academies in the City and in terms of the School Sport Premium Funding provide a coherent and cost effective package to provide high quality PE teaching in Primary schools. If we did not have such a body on place then schools would have been left to either work through existing partnerships, with little expertise in PE or go their own way through piecemeal commercial options. The responses we have had from schools show that they value such a “joined up approach” and the value of money it brings for them. Where schools, even in existing partnerships, can be shown a clear advantage in coming together it seems to over come issues surrounding competition and encourages co-operation, however, existing and respected organisations seem to be best placed to do this.

This tension is difﬁcult to resolve whilst ever the driving force for school improvement is based on the policy of “market forces”. However, it would be possible to lessen the impact if schools were viewed by DfE and OFSTED as having joint responsibility for the all young people in a given geographical area. Thus for example, if all City Schools are held jointly accountable for the successful education of all City young people and if their contribution to this goal were judged and reported by OFSTED the tension might be reduced. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w12 Education Committee: Evidence

Working in a context where schools are all full and demand for places high across the area there is generally little tension however there are emerging issues in some areas where schools are competing for higher attaining pupils. Effective working to reduce tension is absolutely dependent upon the professionalism and personalities of those involved.

5. Whether converter academies’ requirements to support other schools, included in their funding agreements, are sufﬁcient and are effectively policed Although this requirement is included in funding agreements there is a lack of clarity about what is actually required as a minimum. If there was a minimum requirement this could be measured rather than policed as part of “desk top” evidence gathering. At present there seems to be no policing of the requirement at all. Robust system of school to school support through existing partnerships, school companies etc has the potential to be far more effective and long lasting than the often short term converter academies’ support. Some successful converter academies, who are motivated to support other schools in challenging circumstances, ﬁnd the main barrier to doing this is DfE bureaucracy and policy change, perceived lack of engagement and understanding.

6. Whether academies sponsored by another school receive sufﬁcient support from their sponsor Sufﬁcient support is received as long as there is the capacity and capability within the supporting school.

7. Whether school partnerships drive effective school improvement — It depends what the definition of “effective school improvement” is. If this means standards and progress in English and Maths it does where schools within partnerships share responsibility for one another’s outcomes. If the definition is broader, and includes work that schools do to meet their responsibilities around the broader outcomes of achievement for all, and social cohesion etc, then undoubtedly “yes”, because schools can only begin to address those challenges when they work in partnership and pool resources etc. As long as there is clear criteria set for improvement and related to the funding. School improvement has been effective in a range of outcomes: — Schools which have supported other through a formal arrangement have experienced benefits and success with improved Ofsted outcomes. — One partnership can demonstrate improved outcomes in the reduction of exclusion, the more effective placement of high needs pupils and improvements in Alternative Provision quality and value for money then our partnership can evidence. — One school partnership has developed an effective method of improving a school through a “visits and shadowing programme” which allows staff to visit outstanding schools anywhere in the county—many of these have lead to better practice. — A focus on Gifted and Talented pupils has led to improved attainment at higher levels in one partnership. — Shared funding application to run the Improving Teacher Programme and Outstanding Teacher Programmes has led to improvements in quality of teaching and learning across a partnership of schools. — Cross school sporting events has led to improvements in standards in PE and led to more opportunities for competition for children of all ages.

7. Whether there are any additional upsides or downsides for highly performing schools supporting others through partnerships Upsides — To work collectively in a supportive environment to achieve agreed goals and see positive improvement for children. — To stress that you only ever learn from others even if it is simply to reafﬁrm your beliefs and practices. — Great professional development opportunities.

Downsides — The lack of “ofﬁcial” job description and designation for the post of Executive Headteacher could make levels of accountability uncertain. — Perceptions that primary academies are “less important” than secondary academies. — A small “outstanding” primary could be a lonely educational place to be. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w13

— Because the employment of staff through partnerships can be difficult it is often the high performing schools in the partnership who undertake the risks of employing staff on behalf of the partnership. This is because the high performing schools often have the financial security and confidence to do so but is clearly disincentive to their engagement. — It is very tiring and stressful on the leader and staff of the supporting school. October 2013

Written evidence submitted by Girls’ Day School Trust Executive Summary — The GDST has a distinctive model. The Council of the Trust is responsible for the overall running of the organisation. Day to day the GDST is managed by the Chief Executive and the directors on the Senior Management Team. Heads report to the Chief Executive and each school has a local school governing board who liaises with a designated Council member. — Partnership lies at the heart of the organisation—between schools, between school leaders, between teachers and increasingly between pupils across the Trust. — The GDST is a learning community, committed to the encouragement, identification and dissemination of best practice. This submission explores the benefits of various forms of partnerships GDST schools have within and outside the Trust: — GDST-wide expertise and economies of scale—by working as a group our schools are efficient and cost effective as we don’t duplicate services. — Collaboration to support Continuous Professional Development—we use the power of collaboration between schools to further the professional development of our 3,500 staff. — Collaboration between pupils—the GDST also organises cross-school events for pupils, providing opportunities to develop new skills and learn new things. — Partnerships between our Academies and fee charging schools within the Trust—The fee- charging Trust schools benefits from having two Academies in the group and vice versa. — Partnerships with schools outside the Trust—our schools have partnerships—academic, sporting, artistic—with others in their local communities. This submission also explores how the GDST incentivises school collaboration and overcomes possible tensions: — Ensuring collaboration is targeted—the GDST’s interventions and partnerships are very carefully chosen, to ensure that efforts are being directed appropriately. — Encouraging collaboration from the top—cooperation between schools is encouraged by having a definition of “high performing” schools which includes an expectation of collaboration. — Communicating the benefits of collaboration—it is vital to articulate the benefits of collaboration clearly to staff and parents. — Use of data—the GDST shares school performance data to encourage those who are not performing well in some areas to seek advice from those who are.

Full Submission 1. Founded in 1872, The Girls’ Day School Trust owns and runs 24 independent schools and two academies and is the largest single educator of girls in the UK. There are nearly 20,000 pupils and 3,500 staff members in the Trust’s schools and academies throughout England and Wales. 2. Partnership lies at the heart of the organisation—between schools, between school leaders, between teachers and increasingly between pupils across the Trust. The GDST is a learning community, committed to the encouragement, identification and dissemination of best practice. Our partnerships within and outside the GDST allow us to continuously improve and ensure our girls are receiving the best possible education. 3. Schools in the GDST serve different constituencies and have different profiles in terms of pupil ability range. However, they share a commitment to adding value, not just with regard to exam results, but in terms of deeper, more long-lasting outcomes. 4. The GDST’s partnerships are very carefully chosen, to ensure that efforts are being directed to where the most value can be added. Partnership means a larger pool of support around teachers’ working processes. It allows us to share best practice, resources and have shared expectations around the quality of teaching and learning. It also allows schools to gain confidence in introducing innovations, where they have been successful, or lessons can be learned about implementation, from other schools in the network. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w14 Education Committee: Evidence

The GDSTModel 5. The GDST has a distinctive model. The Council of the Trust is responsible for the overall running of the organisation. Day to day the GDST is managed by the Chief Executive and the directors on the Senior Management Team. GDST Heads report to the Chief Executive but have great autonomy over how their schools are run, with control over their curriculum and choice of qualiﬁcations, their stafﬁng, their marketing, their educational philosophy, their choice of ICT equipment, management of their school’s budget (within agreed targets) and the public exams the pupils take. 6. Each school has a local school governing board, whose members don’t have executive authority or legal accountability, but provide ongoing support, inspiration and constructive challenge to the Head, as well as being vital links between the schools and their local communities. Each Council member is associated with a small number of schools to promote the exchange of information between school governors and trustees and advice on governance issues. 7. The success of this model is demonstrated by the achievements of our schools and the stability of the organisation. As a registered charity any surplus is reinvested in the schools. Last year the Trust had a turnover of over £200 million with a £24 million surplus. Academically, students at GDST schools continue to outperform their independent and maintained sector peers at all ages and all stages—in 2012, 84.3% of pupils gaining A*s, As and Bs at A Level and 73.6% of gaining A*s and As at GCSE.

GDST-wideExpertise andEconomies ofScale 8. The GDST is committed to optimising the benefits of being a group of 26 high performing schools and academies in a variety of ways. It is a huge advantage that the GDST is one charity rather than each school being its own charity. The range of services the Trust offers includes expertise in educational policy and legal issues facing schools, human resources, people development, ICT infrastructure, finance, estates, fundraising and communications support. Schools benefit from our shared knowledge and the on-going GDST-wide training programme. Fees collection and payroll services are administered from the centre too. 9. Schools benefit from economies of scale in terms of procurement. By working as a group our schools are efficient and cost effective as we don’t duplicate services across schools—utilities, ICT services and insurance are all procured centrally. For example, we recently rolled out a new enterprise wireless system in all our schools, making a significant saving through one contract rather than 26. Our costs are low and therefore our fees represent good value for our competitor peer group.

Collaboration toSupport Continuous Professional Development 10. Within the GDST, we use the power of collaboration between schools to further the professional development of our 3,500 staff, by encouraging the sharing of best practice between staff at all levels. For example:

Subject Champions 11. This year we launched a pilot of “subject champions” in English, drama, music, junior creative curriculum, Mandarin, classics and the extended project qualiﬁcation. These individual teachers own and lead collaboration areas on the GDST-wide intranet and contribute to the development of subject knowledge and teaching practice across GDST schools. This has been such a success that we are looking to roll it out for all subjects taught in our schools from September 2013.

Cross Trust groups and training programmes 12. Amongst other things we also run cross-Trust training programmes for Aspiring Leaders, Middle Leaders and Heads, and regular conferences for our Senior and Junior Heads and Deputy Heads. For example, the Aspiring Leaders programme, started in October 2012, aims to develop middle leaders. All participants have a mentor from another school, usually a Deputy Head. Running for the full academic year, it gives participants focused school leadership development and training as well as the opportunity to raise their proﬁle in school through their leadership of a School Project. Three people have already been promoted as a result of this programme. 13. Collaboration is also encouraged amongst school support staff. For example, there is an annual Health and Safety Coordinators day, a group for Directors of Finance and Operations who meet twice a year, and an ICT school leader group. As a result of the Health and Safety Coordinators meetings a set of protocols for all schools has been developed.

Maths in Junior Schools project 14. Over the past year our 24 Junior Schools have worked together with support from the Innovation and Learning team at the GDST to design and trial a unique project to enhance the teaching and learning of mathematics. Many are already reporting a noticeable change, particularly in the early years. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w15

15. Although the standard of mathematics across all GDST schools is generally higher than the national average, this can always be improved upon and the main objectives of the project are to ensure that the pupils are enjoying and succeeding in the subject and that Junior School teachers have the confidence and skills to teach maths effectively. 16. Strategies to engage teachers, pupils and parents in the initiative were identified and training courses, alongside in-house support, were delivered to all 24 Junior Schools. Lessons have been modelled across many schools demonstrating best practice. Part of the excitement with this cross-GDST project lay in getting teachers together to discuss and disseminate best practice, and to encourage the growth of a community to share best practice. 17. Three regional cluster groups have now been formed and from September 2013 they will have one twilight meeting per term to share best practice, discuss new initiatives and investigate new resources together. All teachers taking part in the programme can also contact one another through an email group as well as share information and lesson plans online through the GDST’s intranet. 18. It is clear that the schools involved are now aiming to make their maths teaching better and more enjoyable for pupils. Schemes of work have been rewritten, plans have been made to support low achievers and pupils are being motivated through new, maths-focused, extra-curricular clubs and activities such as the Jaguar Maths in Motion software. This activity enables a group of girls to fine tune a “car” that will perform in a Formula 1 race. Through discussing and working together using their maths skills they aim to create the best performing car which will win the race. A total of 14 GDST schools took part in the first race in February, and 12 GDST schools have entered the knockout round for the national finals of the competition in May. In previous years only one of our schools has entered this competition.

Collaboration betweenPupils 19. The GDST also organises cross-school events for pupils, for example, an Oxbridge conference for 200 Sixth Formers, a Young Leaders’ conference with outstanding external speakers, sports rallies that bring schools together across the network, cross-Trust public speaking competitions, poetry competitions and chess championships. Sixth Forms also join up with regular video-conferenced master classes from expert staff. The evidence suggests that pupils appreciate the sense of being part of a network reaching beyond their own school and it opens up opportunities to develop new skills and learn new things. For example: — At this year’s annual Young Leaders’ Conference for head girls and other members of student leadership teams, the challenge was to create, develop and present ideas for a new marketing and fundraising event for charities Clic Sargent, Camfed, Breakthrough Breast Cancer and Whizz-Kidz. The conference equips students with skills to make an impact in their school leadership roles and open their eyes to career options after school. The charities involved also received original and creative ideas that they could put into action. — Our unique CareerStart programme, delivered in our schools by staff from our head ofﬁce, also equips GDST girls with vital skills—resilience, negotiation, leadership, teamwork, enterprise, communication and more—to succeed in life after education. — The GDST Student Council, with representatives from all the GDST senior schools, gives students a voice and an input into the GDST’s vision and values.

Partnerships between our Academies andFeeChargingSchools within the Trust 20. All of our schools are high performing, although the pupils in the two Academies have a wider ability range. We find that the other Trust schools benefit from having two Academies in the group and vice versa. 21. There are strong links between our academies and our fee-paying schools, with staff and pupils from the academies participating in cross-GDST activities and sharing best practice. Academy staff participate for free in the GDST’s extensive staff training and development programme. We provide the academies with expert advice on governance, legal, health & safety, HR and other educational matters, as well as support services in payroll, ICT and finance. As a big educational provider we have the capacity to support our Academies in things they would otherwise have to source on the open market. For example the Academies’ ICT infrastructure costs them £40,000 a year, significantly below what it costs the GDST to provide it for them. The 1,500 pupils in our academies are very much “GDST girls”, and the students have access to the same benefits of being part of the GDST network that students in our fee-paying schools enjoy. 22. Our Academies achieve impressive results. For example, The Belvedere Academy’s first Year 11 mixed ability cohort achieved 98% five A*–C grades including English and maths, and also featured strongly in the Department for Education’s national performance tables for all schools in England in January 2013. 23. Our 24 schools benefit hugely from the two Academies’ knowledge of the use of data in promoting pupil progress. The Belvedere Academy, for example, contributes to inset days on this topic and in the summer term we are holding a focus day there, where leaders of teaching and learning from all our schools will be able to share best practice in quality assurance and see how the Academy achieves this. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w16 Education Committee: Evidence

Partnerships with Schools Outside the Trust 24. The GDST is committed to its charitable mission to make an excellent GDST education available to the widest possible range of girls. One of the ways in which we achieve this is through partnerships—academic, sporting, artistic and other—between our schools and others in their local communities. Many GDST schools share their facilities with local schools and with community groups and sports clubs, often free of charge or at reduced rates. They regularly run joint taster and enrichment days in specialist subjects with local schools. GDST senior schools routinely open up talks and events exploring career and higher education options to students from other schools.

Case study: Sheffield High School 25. Sheffield High School’s extensive range of partnerships have resulted in winning awards at the Independent School Awards for an unprecedented three years in a row, this year for “Outstanding Community Initiative” and for “Best Independent-Maintained School Collaboration” two years running. Projects include an “Aim Higher” project, working with eight Sheffield maintained schools to support more students to apply to Oxbridge, which is being extended to pupils in Years 9 and 10.

Partnership with the Shine Trust 26. A number of our schools work in partnership with the Shine Trust to deliver lessons and activities on a Saturday to pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds living in their local area. The “Serious Fun on Saturdays” programme is hosted by independent schools for students from local state schools who are unlikely to be able to access additional educational support at home. Sheffield High School was the first GDST school to take part in this programme and they have seen extremely positive responses from the pupils and schools involved. Vanessa Langley, Headteacher of Arbourthorne Community Primary School, said: “I am incredibly grateful for the opportunities the SHINE project has afforded our pupils. Our school serves one of the most socio- economically disadvantaged areas in Sheffield. It has been one of the most joyous moments of my career to see aspiration and ambition grow amongst the pupils involved and as a result of these opportunities, see parents realise that hopes and dreams can become a reality and that we have to be prepared to challenge what we may have always accepted in our lives in order to give our children the best possible life chance.”

“Driving Outstanding Practice Programme” 27. Sheffield High School has been working with Wickersley School and Sports College, Horizon Community College and Clifton Comprehensive School to develop and deliver an innovative “Driving Outstanding Practice Programme”, aimed at enhancing teaching in local schools. Six schools in Sheffield, Barnsley and Rotherham have been invited to encourage their secondary school teachers (who have achieved outstanding learning and progress from students) to apply for the course of six half-day events. 28. This is an opportunity for them to learn from experiences and best practice in different environments— an outstanding Teaching School, an ethnically diverse inner city school, a leading independent school and a newly created “school within a school” learning community. 29. It helps teachers to develop the skills and strategies to achieve outstanding learning and progress from students in both their own classrooms and those of colleagues. The idea is that these teachers will then be able to drive forward improvements in teaching and learning by sharing best practice with colleagues back in their schools. 30. The tailored programme draws on a range of learning experiences including: focussed lesson observations in a range of schools in contrasting contexts; demonstration of best practice by the programme leaders and fellow participants; discussion panels with students and staff; collaborative learning opportunities with colleagues from the same school and in other schools and engagement in their online learning community for outstanding teachers to share best practice. 31. The programme is already proving popular, with 12 teachers joining the first cohort, 15 in the second and another 15 signed up for the course beginning in September 2013. Teachers in the first cohort were asked to fill in evaluation forms at the end of the course. One teacher said: “I have created lots of new and exciting resources that the pupils have really taken to”. Another stated: “Now I am delivering regular staff coaching sessions to improve teaching and learning across the department”. Another concluded: “You have given me opportunities to talk and share within my own school and with other schools”.

IncentivisingCollaboration and Overcoming Possible Tensions Possible tensions 32. We have found that the following issues may have to be overcome to pursue collaborative approaches: — Some schools fear that the more a teacher does outside of school (eg attending a course or taking time out of the classroom to work on a collaborative project), the more their work/ lessons will have to be covered. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w17

— Another issue can be parental anxiety about their children’s teachers being absent. — Whilst the majority of our schools are not in competition with one another, as they are spread across England and Wales, some of our South London schools do have similar catchment areas and are therefore in competition with one another for pupils.

Incentives

33. We have found that collaboration can be encouraged and incentivised by:

Ensuring collaboration is targeted

34. The GDST’s interventions and partnerships are selective and very carefully chosen, to ensure that efforts are being directed to where the most value can be added.

35. It helps that most of our schools are not in direct competition with each other, but face similar challenges, and they ﬁnd it extremely helpful to share ideas, learn from each other’s examples of best practice and discuss similar challenges they may be facing. For example:

36. Key Stage 3 Working Group—Heads at some of our schools have chosen to form working groups around certain issues. We have found that these work best when four to ﬁve Heads work together on a problem, then put together a package of what works when looking to address it, which can then be shared with Heads of other schools. For example, the Heads of Wimbledon High School, Central Newcastle High, Oxford High School and Norwich High School recently ﬂagged up their concerns around not being able to bring more innovation into their curriculum, because of government restrictions. They decided that at KS3 there was more room for innovation than at any other level, and so formed a “Key Stage 3 Working Party” to share ideas about how they can do this. There is evidence of substantial innovations around KS3 curriculum, with schools sharing ideas for cross-curricular, collaborative and enquiry-based learning, within a curriculum much less dominated by subject disciplines operating independently of each other.

37. Girls’ School Associations’ London Middle Leaders Development Programme Cluster—Another example of collaboration around one particular goal is the GSA’s MLDP cluster, which includes six GDST schools amongst its members. A group of GSA members from across the London region have grouped together to focus on developing their middle leaders. Although some of the schools are in competition for students, this conﬂict can be resolved with openness and a vision for a desired outcome from the partnership.

Encouraging collaboration from the top

38. We encourage cooperation between schools within the GDST by having a deﬁnition of “high performing” which includes an expectation of collaboration, and continually highlighting its importance to the Senior Leadership Teams in our schools.

39. The Trust Ofﬁce also works to formalise collaboration by organising a range of targeted events and initiatives to encourage our schools to collaborate and share best practice. Many of these have been outlined above, for example subject focused days, a Deputy Heads’ Conference and a Heads’ Conference.

40. It is up to Heads to formalise an expectation of collaboration within their schools, for example by weaving this in to their staff reviews and objectives.

41. Collaboration should also mean a continued drive for improvement which in itself should be the most important incentive of all.

Communicating the beneﬁts of collaboration

42. It is vital to articulate the beneﬁts of collaboration clearly to staff and parents.

43. We make it clear how much added value is derived from being part of a group, with partnership efforts focused on a speciﬁc issue or desired outcomes. For example, by organising events for pupils from all our schools, as outlined above.

44. Schools need to be aware of the fantastic opportunities for free continued professional development that collaboration can bring. Additionally, if some staff are absent due to attending training this provides opportunities for other staff to step up and take on new responsibilities too.

45. It needs to be made clear to parents that, when staff are at a training session, the ultimate aim is to have a positive impact on our pupils. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w18 Education Committee: Evidence

Use of data

46. The GDST measures the performance of our schools and Academies and shares this data with all other schools in the Trust eg academic data, Sixth Form retention rates, ﬁnancial performance information. This gives schools the opportunity to see how they’re performing against one another, encouraging those who are not performing well in some areas to seek advice from those who are. October 2013

Written evidence submitted by Tavistock College

Executive Summary

This submission covers a number of points. These include: — My personal experience of partnership working. — The local factor in partnerships. An example of an effective model—The Leadership Academy. — What worked in the above example. — Issues raised and disadvantages in working like this. — Further partnership developments. — The role of higher performing schools. — Cooperative models of leadership. — The tensions of parental choice. — Flaws in the Teaching Schools model. — Links with local businesses.

1. The Headteacher’s Perspective

In common with many Headteachers I have a broad experience of partnership working. I have coordinated a 14–19 partnership in Weston-Super-Mare, led Exeter for Learning (a secondary schools partnership) piloted a Leadership Academy local model for the National College and as Principal of Tavistock College I am now working with the Schools Cooperative Society to develop a Cooperative Leadership partnership. All of these varied experiences have given me some insights into how partnerships work and how they can be most effective.

2. Partnerships are far more effective if they are driven at the local level. This doesn’t mean to say that they are insular and that national/regional expertise cannot be brought in but there needs to be a local structure that has autonomy. 2.1 The Leadership Academy model at St James School in Exeter was a local partnership between the secondary school and the feeder primary schools in the Learning Community. It needed some modest seed corn funding to get it started but once the schools had bought in and could see the power of this work, it was sustained within existing resources. The National College provided consultant support and £2,000 funding to launch the project. The focus was Leadership Development. The choice of focus was quite deliberate because of the impact of improved leadership on school improvement and outcomes for students. 2.2 In the first year 10 places were offered across the learning community. There was a launch event (overnight) for all participants. All Heads attended on Day 1. Given the demands on schools we wanted to keep supply costs down so the conference ran Friday afternoon and evening and Saturday morning. We also paid an experienced facilitator who had credibility with the local heads to work with the group. The launch event cost £2,000 in total. The rest of the programme was sustained by existing resources. 2.3 Each participant committed to attend 10 twilight Leadership Development sessions during the academic year. There was a celebration event at the end of the first cohort’s time. Each participant also committed to an Action Research project within their own school. Through our links to local Universities we also ensured that there was an opportunity for this learning to be accredited as part of a MEd programme. In the first instance this was optional but as the programme developed more and more participants embarked on further academic study.

3. What Worked — Cost effective sustainable model after Year 1. — Did not take teachers out of their classrooms (kept supply costs down). — The Action Research project beneﬁtted all participating schools. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w19

— Leadership programme was cross phase—good for learning and cross fertilisation of ideas. — Outside expertise could be brought into the programme from other schools, local Universities, other organisations. — The Leadership Twilight seminars covered a range of topics including: — Leadership Hot-seating. — Leading and Managing change. — Leading School Improvement. — Leading Difficult Conversations. — Self Evaluation. — Leadership Coaching. 3.1 Issues — Need for funding to launch the programme—modest but absolutely necessary. — Dependent on one of the participating schools identifying an effective coordinator. (We made this part of the remit of the Assistant Principal leading Professional Development.) — Time allowance for the Coordinator to create the programme and develop the key networks for expert input. — Administration back up to ensure effective communication to all the schools. 3.2 Advantages — Many colleagues who participated in this programme did so because it was local and accessible. — Primary schools particularly find it hard to release middle leaders for national programmes. — The programme was family friendly and helped work life balance. — It provided a toe in the water experience for new leaders. — Many participants went on to leadership roles as Deputies or Assistant Principals. 3.3 Disadvantages — The programme will only work with a strong coordinator in place. — The programme has to be constantly driven and developed. — It has to sit within an existing partnership. — It cannot work effectively without the seed corn funding to launch it. 3.4 Developments Across a cluster of schools staff could be offered leadership opportunities to help schools with particular challenges. This could include secondments or substantive posts. Strict agreements and protocols would need to be in place to support this. 4. Higher performing schools should be encouraged to support schools with challenges but models which are too forced could create resentment and limit progress (I am not talking about schools in special measures where wholesale change is required. I have experience of taking two very different schools out of special measures so I fully understand the challenges of this). 4.1 The support of an outstanding high performing school could be very effective as a way to support schools requiring improvement. However, there would need to be very clear protocols in place and a partnership agreement to make it work. It is also important that there is a reciprocal element and the good practice of the recipient school is also acknowledged and shared. When I took over Tavistock College it was in special measures. Most departments were performing very poorly, however one department, Technology, was excellent. Pockets of excellence need to be acknowledged in these processes. The Technology department here has been identified as a Centre of Excellence in the Challenge Partners programme (this is another programme we are involved with). 4.2 If high performing schools are to offer more support they need coordination and administration costs to be covered. There also needs to be time for Heads to have a clear dialogue about what is needed in terms of support. The support has to be very specific and targeted. The high performing school has to be prepared to release some of its outstanding teachers to support the teachers in the other schools. All such relationships need to be brokered and in the context of very clear protocols and procedures. 5. I am currently exploring a model to develop Cooperative approaches to leadership. Many schools across the country have converted to Cooperative Trusts. There is a particularly large concentration of these schools in the West Country. Some are based on groups of schools working together across phase. In our case Tavistock College became a Cooperative Trust in September 2012 and now 10 primary schools are consulting with a cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w20 Education Committee: Evidence

view to joining us. As part of our cooperative ethos we are looking at ways in which we can help and support each other in effective partnerships. We are also part of a larger regional South West structure of Cooperative schools. Across the groups we are exploring how we might develop Cooperative models of leadership and Cooperative models of learning. 5.1 Modest funding will be needed to support such partnerships. Many schools do not currently have the capacity to release an existing member of staff to lead and develop the initial partnership. Such posts can be very attractive to schools if they can, for example, be offered on a 0.5 secondment basis. Support for 2 days a week of administration also needs to be identiﬁed. Often once partnerships are established and operating well schools will choose to sustain them. In my experience without the initial pilot/seed corn funding this will not happen.

6. There will inevitably be tensions and issues where schools are competing for students and parents have multiple choices. This is particularly acute in city contexts with schools in close proximity. In a rural context, such as Tavistock where a large secondary school serves a large area with many partnerships, a cross phase approach to learning 0–19 can be far more productive. Teachers in all phases will welcome an opportunity to share practice and work together on common themes. Cooperative approaches to learning and improving literacy are two examples.

7. The Teaching Schools model of partnership has much to commend it; however it is both unfair and unproductive in the longer term to channel all funds through this one route. This gives the lead schools too much power and influence over practice elsewhere. There needs to be both equity and some checks and balances in the system. Too often in such partnerships schools requiring improvement or in special measures can feel done unto and disempowered. These sensitivities have to be considered. In these circumstances the school that is being supported can sometimes not receive sufficient support. It can be piecemeal and not targeted on need. Support needs to be very specific—for example improving outcomes in English at Key Stage 4.

8. School partnerships when they are effective can drive school improvement which is system wide. EA2s were very effective. This was because they were well funded and they linked in with local businesses and other partners. Coordinators were well paid and linked into national developments. They supported innovation.

9. As a Trust we have Trust Board members both from the University and from the business community. Help and guidance on effective partnerships with local businesses would be helpful to those setting up partnerships.

10. As new partnerships evolve they could become mini School improvement partnerships. The links with businesses and Universities could add additional capacity and expertise. These partnerships could operate across an area and offer opportunities for training and secondments. The joint procurement opportunities could generate much needed funds to plough back into education. Such partnerships could respond quickly to local need. Clear protocols would need to be drawn up within an agreed vision. In our case this would be based on cooperative principles and practices. It would be very helpful if some modest funding could facilitate the development of these type of partnerships. This could be on the lines of the 14–19 pathﬁnder projects which pre dated the diploma model. The diploma model itself failed because sustainability was never built into it and it was a directive model. Politicians can provide an overarching framework and support for partnership but local pilots should be encouraged so that many partnership models can be tested on the ground. To use only the Teaching Schools as the conduit for partnership models will be unfair to those schools who want to develop effective partnerships though other means, for example as cooperative trusts. October 2013

Written evidence submitted by Northampton Town Area Improvement Partnership (NTAIP)

1. The Northampton Town Area Improvement Partnership (NTAIP) was formed in 2008.

2. This was following a massive re-organisation of schools in Northampton Town from a 3-tier to a 2-tier system where 47 Lower Schools, 19 Middle Schools and nine Upper Schools (75 schools in all) became 50 Primary Schools and nine Secondary Schools (59 schools in all). The reorganisation was necessary in order to address the signiﬁcant under-achievement across the town, which had been apparent for some time. Special and Nursery schools were not directly affected.

3. Such a signiﬁcant change required schools to work collaboratively together to build a well-qualiﬁed work force, which had just been through a period of huge disruption and turbulence, and to address the levels of poor performance.

4. NTAIP now consists of all the 68 schools in the town: 49 Primary, nine Secondary, ﬁve Special and ﬁve Nursery. They are a mixture of Community Schools, Converter Academies and Sponsored Academies in a number of different Trusts, including two single sex schools as well as both Church of England and Roman Catholic Primary schools. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w21

5. Some schools are Outstanding, whilst others are in an Ofsted Categories 3 & 4 and NTAIP works hard to support all schools. 6. Pupil numbers across the town are growing very rapidly due to a significant influx of families largely from Eastern Europe. 7. Northampton Town Area Improvement Partnership (AIP) also includes within its membership the Local Authority (LA) and other key stakeholders in the Northampton Community, including the University of Northampton and Northampton College. 8. The purpose of the AIP is: (a) To provide a world-class school system across the town that will ensure that all of our children and young people have the skills, knowledge, experience and qualifications to live a fulfilled and prosperous life. (b) To provide a local and national lead in school improvement work. (c) To work together as a learning community to improve educational provision for children and young people. (d) To integrate children’s services at a local level so that barriers to progress for children, young people and their families are reduced or eliminated. 9. NTAIP is building capacity at school level through our partnership working using the knowledge, experience and skills of the community of schools and our partners. It is recognising and celebrating our achievements and jointly taking responsibility for the success of the partnership. 10. There is a general consensus across the town that schools as a whole have a collective responsibility for all the young people in the town and to support their education and enable them to maximise their potential wherever they may attend school. 11. Initially NTAIP was funded for a number of years by an allocation per school from the LA to each school but then added together into a single lump sum and allocated to the NTAIP lead school. This was supplemented by central funding from the “Excellence Cluster” and “Behaviour & Attendance Project” within Northampton Town. 12. To support and develop this work initially four strands were created: (a) Transformational Leadership (TL). (b) Teaching & Learning (TfL). (c) Assessment for Learning (AfL). (d) Positive Partnerships for Learning (PPfL). 13. Each Strand has a Steering Group which is led by Heads or Deputy Heads and supported by a range of senior colleagues from schools, the LA and our partners. Meetings of all staff (Teaching and Support) interested in each of the strands are also held regularly. 14. NTAIP commissioned EdisonLearning Ltd. to support our work on Transformational Leadership (TL) and Teaching for Learning (TfL). In both these areas senior colleagues across the town worked with colleagues from EdisonLearning to develop two frameworks. These provided detailed descriptors for both “Effective Learning & Teaching” and “Leadership” (at all levels) and were tied closely to Ofsted Criteria. Coaching methods were employed to support and train staff as the frameworks were introduced across the schools. Special sessions were also held for governors. The feedback was extremely positive and a “County Roll” has been put in place so that a wider group of schools can benefit from the work initiated within the town. 15. Several sub strands were developed within the Teaching for Learning Strand: (a) English as an Additional Language (EAL). Almost all schools in the town have many of such pupils and in some primary schools for example there are over 40 different native languages spoken. This EAL group has worked hard to share good practice. It has held 2 town-wide conferences and has developed and distributed a CD of good practice, which was widely acclaimed. A website has now been set up to share high standard teaching materials. (b) Transition. A great deal of time and hard work has been spent on developing a more comprehensive and effective Transition Programme. This now includes additional support for all those pupils who may find Transition even more difficult than most. “Passport” Booklets to help on the co-ordinated Transition Days and this year a unit of work, called “A Hero’s Journey”, has been produced, which will support pupils still more effectively. (c) Drama for Writing (D4W). This project has been exceptionally successful in supporting pupils develop their writing skills; indeed it has been mentioned positively in a number of Ofsted reports. This has now been extended into Key Stage 3, and a conference to celebrate its success and to develop the work still further is being held later this summer at Northampton College. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w22 Education Committee: Evidence

16. The Assessment for Learning Strand (AfL) commissioned a piece of work to support primary schools in the manipulation of data so that they could more easily use data to support Teaching and Learning. All Year 6 pupils sit CATs tests to support the Admission process in over-subscribed schools. (This is because as a whole the secondary schools are determined to ensure that all the secondary schools are as “comprehensive” in their intake as possible.) Work is being done to enable primary teachers to use the results of these CATs tests on a pupil level, to inform their teaching to individual and small groups of pupils. This strand has also developed a system of transferring agreed pupil data more effectively from primary to secondary schools.

17. Promoting Partnerships for Learning Strand (PPfL) includes a wide range of activities and partnerships developed by an Extended Services Co-ordinator (ESCO). The work includes developing after school and holiday activities all designed to support young people, be healthy, develop new skills, raise aspirations and become active and committed citizens of the future. Last year an Olympic relay was held from one school to another so that at the end of 2/3-week period every school had been visited and passed on a symbolic Olympic torch. This was a highly successful and well-publicised event and a moving one too as the children learned a lot about the country each school had been allocated and felt really excited about the forthcoming Games.

18. Behaviour and Attendance were issues identiﬁed by schools as requiring additional support so NTAIP went out to tender in order to commission expertise and advice in these areas. The Behaviour and Attendance Project (BAP) is now well under way with some very clear ways identiﬁed and new arrangements made. For example the managed move of pupils is already well established and in use and providers for alternative provision have now been quality assured and are ready for engagement in September 2013.

19. For the last two years NTAIP has held a “Celebration of Learning” to show parents, friends and indeed the whole wider community the excellent work going on within our schools. Individual and clusters of schools have organised a whole range of activities, including musical and sporting events. In addition, art and 3-D work are displayed across the town in various shopping areas, museums and libraries. Last year the theme was “The 2012 Olympic Games”. This year it is “The Year of the Shoe”.

20. As NTAIP continues to grow and develop the Strands have been modiﬁed somewhat and aligned to match the key Ofsted Judgements. They are: (a) Standards & Achievement of Pupils (Including Progression, Moderation, Targeting of speciﬁc underperforming groups of pupils eg FSM, LAD etc, use of Assessment to inform Learning & Teaching). (b) Quality of Teaching (Including: Quality Framework for Teaching & Learning, Transition, EAL, Drama for Writing KS2 & KS3, support for NQTs, Networking (for various types of staff) Literacy and Raising of Pupils’ Reading Ages). (c) Attendance, Behaviour & Safety (Concentrating on the development of the current Behaviour and Attendance Project (BAP) and to include primary schools and continuing the “Extended Services work”).

21. Clearly within such a large partnership engagement by each individual school is variable. The overwhelming majority are fully involved and are playing a part in most NTAIP activities. A few are less committed, but all schools are engaged in at least two areas of the work.

22. The NTAIP has established a Legal Entity—“Northampton Town AIP Ltd.”—which gives the schools still more ﬂexibility to achieve VfM for a wide range of services across the school estate.

23. Direct funding to the NTAIP from the DfE/EFA to support this successful partnership working of schools would facilitate further development and extend the services that NTAIP is able to provide. October 2013

Written evidence submitted by Rugby School

The following written submission considers the propositions of the Select Committee in context of Rugby School’s partnership with Coventry Diocesan Board of Education (CDBE) and its member schools.

It is made with the knowledge and agreement of the CDBE.

Summary — The Partnership Agreement between the Coventry Diocesan Board and Rugby School is to our knowledge unique in its nature and potential. — The agreement and its associated initiatives are set out in detail. — The partnership model can be shown to address most of the key questions and challenges for which evidence has been called by the committee. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w23

1. Introduction: The Partnership Agreement 1.1 The partners are The Coventry Diocesan Board of Education, which comprises 73 primary schools and two secondary schools across Coventry and Warwickshire; and Rugby School, an Anglican Foundation dating back to 1567. 1.2 The partnership agreement was signed in December 2012 and has as its stated aims — To bring clear benefits for the children and young people we serve. — Share and develop expertise of staff across all our organisations. — Develop and implement innovative ways of working. — Together, raise aspirations of children, staff, parents and governors. 1.3 The co-signatories have identified and embarked upon a number of initiatives. These initiatives have been based on many which have had success in other schools but which have not been brought together under the same umbrella. As an evolving relationship the Partnership allows these initiatives to expand, to be refined and to be supplemented over the coming years. The initiatives are outlined in section 2.

2. The initiatives identiﬁed and targeted by the Partnership Agreement 2.1 Mentoring Pupils from years 11–13 at Rugby School have, following training from the Educational Charity Place2Be, undertaken mentoring of pupils from years 4 and 6 in two different schools. In the ﬁrst school there are 21 pairings of year 12 and 13 mentors with year 6 primary school pupils. In the second school 13 year 4 pupils are mentored by those from year 11. The programme is being rolled out so that from September 2013 there will be at least 100 mentor pairings.

2.2 Community Based Music and Drama Events Rugby School has the facilities and the experience amongst its staff to help co-ordinate a number of primary schools to perform together. Following interest expressed by the CDBE and individual schools, the ﬁrst “Big Sing”, involving 150 Pupils from local primary schools, will take place in June 2013. “Big Sings” will take place twice a year, in June and at Christmas. A similar model involving Drama is planned for 2014. A chorister development programme, providing the opportunity of still more focused specialist expertise, will develop from the Big Sing programme in due course.

2.3 Governorships Governance is a vital area for school improvement, made all the more pressing by the growth of academisation. The Coventry Diocesan Board of Education has worked with Rugby School to identify individuals from the Rugby School community, both teaching and non-teaching staff, who can take up governing posts in CDBE schools. Three people from Rugby School were appointed to governing roles in the ﬁrst term following the signing of the Partnership.

2.4 Staff consultation and interaction Sharing good practice between teachers and schools is at the heart of successful co-operation. The partnership allows sharing between secondary school teachers, between primary school teachers, and the all too rare sharing of good practice between primary and secondary teachers. The range of expertise within the schools embraced by the partnership holds great potential for consultation, and Rugby School has the necessary facilities to host appropriate meetings.

2.5 After School and Homework Clubs Pupils can gain great insight into their own learning by helping others to learn, as demonstrated by the mentoring programme. Rugby School’s facilities allow the establishment of homework clubs between those pupils in secondary schools but also activity and homework clubs for those in primary schools.

3. Differing forms of school partnership and co-operation, and whether they have particular advantages and disadvantages 3.1 The great strength of this partnership agreement is that it is just that—a partnership agreement. It is neither a sponsorship arrangement, nor a franchise nor an attempt at homogenisation. It is an agreement based on co-operation rather than colonisation. 3.2 The partners share a common Christian heritage and ethos. They also agree that because educational attainment is about the successful interaction of individuals with each other and with the values of the communities of which they are part, progress in educational measurables has to be grounded in the integrity of an institution’s immeasurable qualities—love, happiness, dedication and mutual support. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w24 Education Committee: Evidence

3.3 Coventry Diocesan Board of Education promotes, nurtures, and enhances co-operation across the Church family of schools. Equally, the founding mission of Rugby School included the educational welfare of local boys and (since 1975) local girls. The partnership therefore enables both parties to more successfully fulﬁl their own individual missions.

4. How highly performing schools could be better encouraged to co-operate with others & whether schools have sufﬁcient incentives to form meaningful and lasting relationships with other schools 4.1 The nature of the partnership as highlighted in section 3 provides a very clear incentive to co-operate with other schools. It is hoped this partnership will become a successful model that other schools can act on. 4.2 Equally, the partners agree that it should be in the nature of highly performing schools to recognise that their excellence is dependent on mutual co-operation and inter-action with and amongst their shared community. 4.3 An outstanding example of this is the mentoring programme. On the one hand, the mentees receive dedicated, individual support from interested and more experienced individuals who nevertheless live in the same community in a recognisable environment—a school. As such, the relationships formed promote not only the pride, joy and appreciation of successful attainment—in, for example, literacy—but also an insight into the aspirations of older children who regard the highest educational attainment as their greatest priority. On the other hand, the mentors come to understand their own learning more intimately through helping others learn; they become more aware of all those around them, thus enhancing their understanding of and empathy with their own community; and their own aspirations and sense of self-worth are nurtured.

5. If and how the potential tension between school partnership and co-operation, and school choice and competition, can be resolved 5.1 Because Rugby School is not a competitor to the schools from the Coventry Diocesan Board of Education, this tension is neatly avoided. 5.2 Equally, the nature of the partnership ensures there is no tension between choice and competition. The partnership is based on the conviction that whilst all good schools can be good schools in their own way, they are all alike in their respect for co-operation and relationships at the heart of education. It is in this spirit that schools in the town of Rugby which are not members of the CDBE (but are in the Diocese itself) have been involved in the initiatives described in section 2.

6. Whether school partnerships drive effective school improvement 6.1 On the basis of the evidence in this submission, we would offer an emphatic “yes”. By their nature, some of the most important qualities of a successful school are hard to measure. Nevertheless, constant evaluation of the partnership is vital in order to establish how partnerships can best drive school improvement. 6.2 Evaluation of the mentoring scheme has already begun and will continue. Mentors were asked to reflect on the first two terms of the programme, and a sample of their comments is provided in paragraph 6.3. 6.3 Asked to identify the best aspects of the programme, mentors commented: “The development of a work ethic—he is more motivated now.” “We can discuss ideas together and settle on a compromise.” “My mentee listens to me now, and she seems to respond to my requests. We also both share a love of reading.” “The development of his confidence”—perhaps the most common remark among the mentors. There have also been challenges to be overcome, although generally strategies to deal with those challenges have been met: “Sometimes he gets upset if he thinks he’s rubbish because he didn’t get time to finish (and is not motivated) but his motivation to work better has improved and when he finishes his work to a good standard—then he is happy!” Mentors have of course gained a great deal, remarking: “I have gained a greater understanding of children’s needs and emotions, and an ability to help younger people.” and more simply “It puts my life into perspective” and “He has inspired me”. The mentors also feel that the mentees have gained, suggesting: “My Mentee is becoming more adventurous in what he is willing to do—using more complex vocabulary and trying to be much more ambitious in his writing.” “He seems to have benefited from stability in working with the same person every week and learning to manage new people and tasks.” “She needs to know that she has support, and more people care about her work.” cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w25

7. Any additional upsides or downsides for highly performing schools supporting others through partnerships

7.1 Community interaction should be in the DNA of highly performing schools. School partnerships provide an unrivalled opportunity to both broaden and deepen such interaction.

7.2 Partnerships by their nature hold a mirror to their participants. What an institution thinks it does well is tested; what it thinks it may do less well might reveal unexpected qualities. At the same time there is an opportunity to discover not only alternative approaches but the rationale behind such approaches in an environment which encourages open minds rather than dictates terms and conditions. October 2013

Written evidence submitted by the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT)

1. The National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) is an independent trade union and professional association representing over 28,000 school leaders across all sectors of education. Members hold leadership positions in early years, primary, special and secondary schools, independent schools, sixth form and FE colleges, outdoor education centres, pupil referral units, social services establishments and other educational settings, making us ideally placed to comment on this topic.

2. Schools are inherently collaborative institutions. The very nature of their business requires them to work in partnership with parents, with local authorities, with dioceses, external service providers, further education colleges and higher education institutions to name but a few. Collaboration can help to achieve economies of scale for schools when purchasing goods and services. It can also be a significant driver of school improvement by facilitating professional development for school leaders and other staff, and providing a supportive yet challenging forum for discussing issues particular to schools’ contexts and areas. Significantly, school collaboration can provide wider enrichment opportunities for pupils, including the many successful exchange programmes between rural and inner city schools which offer opportunities for pupils from different and diverse backgrounds to mix, as well as school-to-school and cross authority moderation systems, which have proven rigorous in their approach. Perhaps most notably, obtaining support for SEN/disabled pupils requires significant coordination and cooperation across groups of schools in a locality.

3. School forums are also an important means of school to school collaboration. A professionally constituted schools forum provides a vehicle to give schools, working in partnership together, the opportunity of exercising informed professional judgements in the allocation of the schools funding stream, ensuring that best practice is extended uniformly and to the beneﬁt of all pupils. It would be particularly helpful if more consistently good training were to be made available to forum members. Currently much, if not all, of the information and training provided to forum members is by local authorities. This can unwittingly distort the information given. School forums should be independent of, and not subject to, local authority control. To ensure this, it would be helpful if the forum was also staffed independently as well. In this way, it can legitimately be seen as acting as part of the “check and balance” regime necessary.

4. Collaboration and/or federation can provide the only means of survival for small rural schools.

5. However, the climate for collaboration must be right. There must be trust between those schools working together, mutual respect for staff and pupils alike and conﬁdence and recognition that all schools in the collaboration have something to bring to the group as well as something they want to take out.

6. Collaboration is not without risk. There are ﬁnancial risks associated with any joint venture requiring physical or human resources. NAHT is dismayed at the government’s failure to make any allocations using the ﬁnancial incentive model originally promised in the school’s white paper, and questions what happened to the £35 million it pledged to set aside for schools helping to enhance the performance of struggling schools whilst maintaining their own accomplishments.

7. There are also reputational risks associated with working in partnership with a school that may have a particular reputation within the local community. There is also the risk that getting involved in the work of another school will result in a school leader or governing body “taking their eye off the ball”, resulting in a drop in standards in their “home” institution; this is particularly the case when collaborations are focused on school improvement. It is not uncommon for high performing schools to experience an amount of “backlash” if it is perceived by the schools’ parent body that the head and leading teachers are spending too much time off-site supporting other schools.

8. When considering school improvement, it is also important to stress the difference between collaborative or partnership working and a “hostile takeover” of the kind too often observed as part of the “forced academy” programme. NAHT believes that the profession, rather than DfE brokers, is best suited to identifying potential partners based on expertise and local knowledge. Open and transparent collaboration can provide school leaders and governors the opportunity to tailor partnerships to their individual school and pupils’ needs—supporting the government’s promise in the 2010 schools white paper, to move “towards schools as autonomous institutions collaborating with each other on terms set by teachers, not bureaucrats”. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w26 Education Committee: Evidence

9. NAHT has been particularly impressed by the transparent and open processes conducted by the Co- operative College’s co-operative school trust model, which as of May 2013 has 452 schools in England (including 31 academies), making it the third largest grouping within the English education system. 10. In contrast, we believe that much of the government’s free schools policy flies in the face of its collaboration agenda by allowing schools to be set up in direct competition to existing schools in areas that already have sufficient school places. Such an approach, combined with the threat of forced academisation for schools in challenging circumstances, creates a climate in which collaboration is less likely. It is hardly surprising that there have been difficulties in delivering the commitment that every converter academy will provide support to an underperforming school in their area, as not only does this policy ignore geographical dimensions of school performance but it is being pursued in a climate where any approach from a local academy might be perceived as a potential take-over bid. 11. Unfortunately there remains insufficient evidence in the public domain (particularly in the primary sector) for NAHT to comment with certainty on the level and quality of support offered by school sponsors. October 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Director of Partnerships at King’s College School, Wimbledon Executive Summary — Introduction to the King’s College School programme of partnerships with maintained schools. — The Wimbledon Partnership. — The Aspirations Project for students on Free School Meals. — King’s College School and Coombe Girls’ and Boys’ Schools. — Beneﬁts to Student Volunteers. — Funding and Sponsorship. — Pastoral Impact and Inspection Reports. — A recommendation to the government to promote the King’s College School partnerships model.

The Submitter Harry Chapman, the Director of Partnerships at King’s College School, Wimbledon, was educated at Cambridge University and joined the Modern Languages department at King’s College School, Wimbledon in 1998. He took up the post of Co-ordinator of Partnerships in 2008 and became Director of Partnerships and Outreach in 2012. Harry Chapman works closely with the Head Master and Deputy of King’s College School, Wimbledon to maintain and develop the School’s wide-ranging programme of partnerships with maintained schools. The programme has recently been visited by the Under Secretary of State for Children and Families and the Schools Commissioner for England.

Memorandum 1. King’s College School, Wimbledon, is a leading independent day school whose engagement in partnerships with maintained secondary, primary, special needs schools and academies goes well beyond the public benefit requirement placed on independent schools by the charity commission. The School’s commitment to this programme reflects a desire to share our resources with the local community and a strong belief in the mutual benefit of partnerships across the sectors. Among benefits of partnerships work to King’s are opportunities for teacher-training, the sharing of resources and skills, the provision of work experience and the broadening of our students’ cultural horizons. The maintained schools we work with benefit through the sharing of our resources and expertise, exposure to different subjects and teaching styles and the provision of strong teenage role models. 2. The Wimbledon Independent-State Schools Partnership was set up in 2003 in response to the London Challenge, whose beneficial impact was endorsed by Ofsted in 2010. Government funding continued until 2009, since when the costs have been met almost entirely by King’s College School, Wimbledon. The Wimbledon Partnership is between King’s, three academies and four maintained secondary schools. These are Coombe Boys’ and Girls’ schools (both academies) in Kingston, the Ursuline, Ricards Lodge and Raynes Park High Schools and St Mark’s Church of England Academy in Merton, and Grey Court School in Richmond. Mutual arrangements include the sharing of best practice between Heads of Department and the schools’ pastoral teams, shared management courses and opportunities for beginner teachers to obtain Qualified Teacher Status through observation and teaching practice. King’s also provides support for Oxbridge and Medical applications, and our teachers provide a course of ten GCSE revision sessions for over 200 Y11 students at the partner schools every spring term. The average number of pupils achieving A*–C in five subjects including English and Maths at the maintained schools in the partnership has risen from 49.8% to 60.4% in the last four years. King’s also runs a special project for partner school students who receive free school meals and whose parents have not been in Higher Education. King’s staff members sit on the governing bodies of two of the partner schools. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w27

3. The Partnership is sustained through a relationship of mutual respect and trust that has been built up over a decade. Having established several successful schemes, King’s has been able to show these to other schools as a preliminary step to inviting them to join the Partnership. New projects have always been launched in consultation with the schools involved and reviewed by them. In this way the Partnership has achieved depth and variety through a gradual process of constructive dialogue. This has led to the steady accrual of a range of sustainable projects which receive the full support of all the schools and which are regularly reviewed. Crucial to this process are the termly meetings of an executive committee chaired by the Director of Partnerships at King’s. This contains a senior representative from each school and is a forum for the exchange of ideas and the review of projects. 4. Strong support for the Partnership comes from the Head Master of King’s College School, Wimbledon, who speaks regularly about its benefits on public occasions and ensures that the governing body remains informed about the latest developments. A member of the governing body has taken special responsibility for the programme, and there is a widespread perception among staff at the School that partnerships work brings benefits in terms of continuing professional development. Indeed the Partnership is often given by external candidates as one of their reasons for applying for teaching posts at King’s. The development of a partnerships department has given staff the opportunity to rise within the school hierarchy, and the team now consists of a Director of Partnerships managed by the Deputy Head (Academic). The Director has two assistants, one helping to run the Partnership’s academic work and the other supporting the delivery of creative projects. Over thirty members of staff are engaged on projects with local schools, including those in the Wimbledon Partnership, every Friday afternoon in term-time, while sixteen teach after-school GCSE revision lessons in the spring term. Others teach on our Aspirations Project and run a summer scheme for three primary schools. 5. In 2008 King’s launched the Aspirations Project for students at the partner schools who are in receipt of Free School Meals and whose parents who have not been in Higher Education. Seventy students in Y9 are selected each year to experience a four-year programme of inspirational sessions which culminate in a Preparing for University Day in Y12. The sessions include classes given by King’s staff with the support of their pupils and a range of educational excursions, including a day at Imperial College and a visit to the University of Sussex. The Preparing for University Day includes a section on university tuition fees which has a positive effect on the students’ attitudes to Higher Education. The impact of each session is reinforced by a booklet which prepares the students and prompts them to reflect on the session afterwards. In the spring term, Aspirations students and others in Year 11 attend weekly after-school revision classes in GCSE subjects taught mainly by King’s staff. Some pupils on the Aspirations Project are also offered work experience as leaders on the school’s Open Doors Project, an arts and sports scheme for primary schools at which around 50% of the children receive Free School Meals. These are Ronald Ross and Southmead primary schools in Wandsworth and St Mark’s primary school in Merton. Students in Years 12 and 13 at the partner schools are invited to attend academic society meetings and revision classes and given university interview practice if requested. 6. Our longstanding partnership with Coombe Boys’ and Girls’ Schools is founded on the belief that we can benefit from each other’s expertise and experience. Reciprocal arrangements include shared management training courses, student-teacher induction programmes and mentoring for new Heads of Department. As a governor at Coombe, the Senior Mistress supported the schools’ successful bid for academy status and another member of staff at King’s has responsibility for co-ordinating the partnership. Many activities take place on Friday afternoons, when Year 7 girls attend Latin classes run by our Classics Department and delivered by members of our Sixth Form. Our collaboration on the Latin project has enabled it to become embedded as a popular GCSE subject at the girls’ school, and pupils taking the examination in in recent years have achieved the highest grades in any subject. In response to recent difficulties with funding, a King’s parent whose son taught on the project generously agreed to provide sponsorship for the next five years. Members of the King’s Sixth Form also provide learning support in Maths, Science and Languages at Coombe Boys’ school, while Coombe boys join our Cadet Force for army training on Friday afternoons. Coombe girls play in our school orchestra and sing in a Coombe/King’s choir. 7. The King’s partnerships programme is strengthened and enriched by the work of a large number of student volunteers, for whom participation in the programme provides excellent work experience and the opportunity to develop new skills. As well as revising their knowledge of academic subjects, teaching these reinforces the self-esteem of many less confident pupils. In recent years over 350 King’s pupils in Years 10–13 have volunteered to work on a community project every Friday afternoon. Many of these contribute to the Wimbledon Partnership by supporting the teaching of Maths, Latin, Chinese, English as an Additional Language and other subjects to younger pupils at the partner schools. Pupils in the Sixth Form also deliver a science taster course developed by Imperial College to Gifted and Talented students in Year 8 who are in receipt of Free School Meals. 90 partner school students in Y8 experience this programme every year. Among creative partnerships are the teaching of guitar to students at St Mark’s Academy and the creation of a play by members of the Sixth Form at King’s and Ricards Lodge High School. For the Ricards students in Y12 this has formed part of the coursework for their BTEC in Performing Arts. Creative projects are performed in front of the students’ parents at our annual Open Doors Evening in the school theatre, which is also an opportunity for networking between management and staff at the schools. 8. King’s College Junior School runs a Junior Aspirations Project for pupils at four primary schools in Merton and Wandsworth. Supervised by the Head of Outreach at the Junior School, this extends the knowledge and ability of gifted children in Year 5 with the aim of enabling them to apply for places at academically cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w28 Education Committee: Evidence

selective schools. Each year a selected group of gifted pupils from each primary school is invited to a one- year programme of classes every Friday afternoon in term-time. Supported by members of the King’s Sixth Form, these include English, Maths, Latin, French, Music, Geography and Art. Of the fourteen pupils who attended the programme in 2011–12, ﬁve were accepted at selective schools and three secured places at good local secondary schools.

9. The King’s outreach programme involves large numbers of staff and beneﬁts from the allocation of Friday afternoons for co-curricular activities, of which volunteering to work in local schools is the most popular. Many of the costs of the programme, such as a substantial proportion of the overheads, staff salaries, transport, and earnings foregone from the hiring of our facilities, are invisible; however it has been calculated that these costs amount to at least £200,000 a year. However, King’s also spends a budget of around £60,000 a year on the programme, mainly on transport, hospitality and payments to staff and guest speakers.

10. The partnerships programme has acted as a stimulus for many individual acts of philanthropy. In the last three years over £700,000 has been given by members of the King’s community to its bursary fund, enabling talented children from modest backgrounds to enjoy the benefits of a King’s education. In addition, individual projects have attracted generous sponsorship from donors, including support for Latin at Coombe Girls’ School and the Junior Aspirations Project. The first senior Aspirations pupil to enter our Sixth Form on a full bursary joined us this September. The Open Doors Project is partly funded by the School’s Parent-Teacher Association. The generosity of the parents who run this committee towards the project provides strong evidence that many parents value the School’s openness to the local community and recognise the educational benefit of the programme to their sons and daughters.

11. The School’s policy of focusing its work with primary schools on schools whose pupils will later attend the secondary schools in the Wimbledon Partnership means that large numbers of local children and their parents know our campus, staff and pupils and have a positive attitude towards King’s. This is also true of many families whose children attend the maintained schools in the Partnership. Possibly as a result of this there has been a slight increase in applications from pupils at local maintained schools for bursary and other places in recent years. Numbers have not been so high as to undermine the Partnership, however, and the closeness of our relations, coupled with the School’s generosity in other areas, have proved sufﬁcient to counteract possible tensions in this area.

12. The emphasis on empathy, teamwork and social awareness which informs the volunteering programme reinforces the work of tutors and Heads of House, many of whom run demanding community projects out of a strong belief in their educational and pastoral beneﬁts. The teaching of younger pupils, in particular, often has the effect of increasing the self-esteem of less conﬁdent pupils. In the case of younger pupils at our partner schools, King’s pupils frequently provide outstanding role models. One example of this is the combination of Gifted and Talented girls in Year 8 on our science programme with King’s girl scientists in Y12.

13. The last two Independent Schools Inspectorate reports have warmly endorsed the School’s outreach work. The report for November 2011 states: “It (the curriculum) is enriched by an exceptional outreach programme of community service and a rich variety of outstanding creative, cultural and sporting activities, which promote inclusivity as well as variety… Pupils show concern for each other’s welfare and their strong moral, social and cultural awareness is highlighted in their commitment to and involvement in the service of others, both locally and worldwide… Exemplary links with the local community underpin an exceptional outreach programme of community service. An educational project involves pupils in helping run workshops to inspire local maintained secondary school pupils to raise their aspirations. Others work in special schools or deliver ICT and art classes at local libraries… Many (King’s pupils) are outward-looking, showing strong moral ﬁbre and making a commitment to regular service in the community, whether preparing displays, workshops and shows for partner primary schools or working with the local homeless.” Perhaps even more tellingly, the recent Ofsted report for Ricards Lodge High School speaks approvingly of its partnership with King’s College School.

14. King’s College School would like to propose its varied and successful partnerships programme to the Select Committee as a model for other independent and maintained schools. While the School supports the government’s policy of encouraging independent schools to sponsor academies, its ambitious outreach programme shows that there are alternative ways for schools in the maintained and independent sectors to engage productively with each other. Many successful independent schools lack the resources of schools whose endowments make it possible for them directly to sponsor academies but nevertheless have a strong desire to contribute to improvements in mainstream education. The King’s model is successful because it offers opportunities for work experience to pupils and for professional development to staff while making a substantial contribution to the education of students at maintained schools. Our programme is also in harmony with the government’s desire to promote a culture of volunteering among young people. King’s would like to suggest that its programme offers a practical, sustainable and imaginative model which sits comfortably alongside the creation of academies and free schools. Its model enables an independent school to work closely and share good practice with one or more local maintained schools and support them in ﬂexible and mutually inspirational ways. These schools may be academies or they might be long established in the area, and ready to beneﬁt from shared good practice and the formation of a close and trusting relationship with another local school. We should like to encourage the government publicly to endorse this model and to recommend its adoption by other independent and maintained schools. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w29

15. The Wimbledon Partnership was visited last year by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Children and Families and in March this year by the Schools Commissioner for England. Following the latter visit, the Head Master of King’s College School and the Head Teachers of the maintained schools in the Partnership have been invited to the Department for Education to give a presentation to the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Schools and the Permanent Secretary for the Department for Education. They will also be celebrating the ﬁrst decade of the Partnership at a reception at the House of Commons in June 2013. King’s College School would be delighted to show members of the committee around its programme and is keen to engage in a dialogue with the government about the potential beneﬁts of its model to the maintained and independent sectors. October 2013

Written evidence submitted by the Liverpool Learning Partnership The Liverpool Learning Partnership has been in existence formally since September 2013. The Partnership considered the following models on which to base its organisation: — An informal structure. — A co-operative. — A company limited by guarantee. — An educational trust. The Partnership, following consultation with its constituent parts, has opted to become a company limited by guarantee. This provides a degree of legal protection for those acting on behalf of the Partnership and allows the LLP to commission services, hold bank accounts and recruit staff. A number of Partnerships are growing up around the country. Most of these appear to cover a speciﬁc phase of education (eg Primary or Secondary.) The Blackpool and Plymouth partnerships, for example, concentrate on Primary education. Liverpool’s model, however, is particularly inclusive and ambitious. The LLP is completely cross-phase covering Children’s Centres, Early Years (both mainstream and PVI), Primary, Special and Secondary. The LLP also includes the local FE college. Membership of the Partnership is open to mainstream schools, academies, private schools, Free schools, UTCs, Studio Schools etc. The strength of this approach is that it promotes the philosophy of learning organisations taking responsibility for all learners in the city and allows for a strategic vision for all learning in Liverpool to be secured.

How highly performing schools could better be encouraged to cooperate with others The LLP has the philosophy that no learner or learning organisation will be left behind, or will become isolated or vulnerable. Liverpool has over 80% of its schools which are in “good” or “outstanding” Ofsted categories. The Partnership also has three Teaching Schools as members. The LLP determines the use of funding for supporting Primary Schools which are vulnerable, which is de-delegated funding. The Partnership has been able to arrange for three teachers to be seconded from successful Primary schools. Two have been placed in a school which is in Special Measures with the third allocated to a school which has received a notice to improve. In the case of the latter of these schools the Partnership is acting in a sponsor role to draw resources to that school from successful schools in the city. The LLP is currently in discussion with the DfE with the expectation that it will become an Academy sponsor, on a formal basis. The LLP is presently receiving membership contributions from learning organisations in the city. This money will be used to fund a variety of initiatives. These include devising a curriculum for Liverpool learners, which draws on best practice as regards implementing national curriculum requirements but also capitalises on the city’s cultural and sporting offer. Also an initiative to improve reading standards in the city is being designed at present. Schools will also be offered free access to a new city-wide, pupil-tracking system. Practitioners and governors from successful schools are making a contribution to these new initiatives by sitting on the Task Groups that are taking responsibility for their implementation. Academies have thus far indicated that they wish to co-operate with all learning organisations in the city through involvement in the Partnership.

Whether schools have sufﬁcient incentives to form meaningful and lasting relationships with other schools Liverpool has a proud history of strong relationships between schools. There remains a commitment for the concept of “the family of schools” to be retained. Schools continue to work together through: — Headteacher managerial associations. — Learning Networks. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w30 Education Committee: Evidence

— SEN consortia. — The Liverpool Learning Partnership. The main incentive to form meaningful and lasting relationships is to secure consistently high provision across the city and to enable school leaders to contribute directly to a strategic vision for the whole education service. The LLP believes that the Government should take steps to require partnerships to be set up in all Local Authorities.

If and how the potential tension between school partnership and cooperation, and school choice and competition can be resolved Schools welcome being autonomous organisations. Competition is accepted as a fact which can motivate schools to always strive to be the best they can be. But harmful and unnecessary competition will be frowned upon by the LLP. So schools seem prepared to accept that they can be both independent and interdependent. Members of LLP are asked to sign a “memorandum of understanding” to ensure that they adhere to the principles of the Partnership and act in an ethical manner.

Whether converter academies’ requirements to support other schools, included in their funding agreements, are sufﬁcient and are effectively policed The Liverpool Learning Partnership is well placed to be a vehicle for the securing of school-to-school support. The LLP has opened discussions with the sponsors of one of the city’s converter academies to model effective liaison between the sponsor and the Partnership concerning providing school support. The Partnership will monitor how positive outcomes are secured through school-to-school support. However there would not appear to be any formal arrangements, that are known to the LLP, for the “policing” of such support.

Whether academies sponsored by another school receive sufﬁcient support from their sponsor Liverpool does not presently have any academies sponsored by another school.

Whether school partnerships drive effective school improvement The Liverpool Learning Partnership believes that partnerships do drive forward school improvement. The LLP has been directly involved in the work of the Mayor’s Education Commission. The Commission is chaired by Estelle Morris and is expected to come forward with a range of recommendations which will impact positively on school improvement. The Partnership has drawn up a protocol, together with the Local Authority, which describes explicitly the LLP’s roles and responsibilities as regards school improvement. The LLP can summon a range of resources which can be “donated” by the city’s learning organisations to support school improvement. The secondment of teachers, arranged by the LLP, has already secured signiﬁcant improvements in two schools. The LLP initiative on Reading will certainly improve standards in the city’s schools.

Whether there are any additional upsides or downsides for highly performing schools supporting others through partnerships In cases where teachers are seconded to other schools the staff in question derive a broadening of experience, career development and the possibility of enhanced status and pay. This upside should be balanced with a potential down-side that a secondment could destabilise the “donor” school through a loss of expertise. However this should be prevented by detailed discussion and planning with the “donor” school to ensure this is not likely. A downside of a long-term secondment is its high cost. However the Partnership is drawing on the experiences of the London Challenge in trialling shorter term arrangements where staff from strong schools are placed to work alongside others. Such arrangements are less expensive. Donor schools can also be granted “credits”, rather than reimbursement, whereby the Partnership provides a certain number of days of support to the donor school. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w31

Openness and trust are important factors in school-to-school-support. However a downside could be a breach of conﬁdentiality relating to the vulnerable school’s circumstances. This can be prevented through clear protocols on the sharing of information and data. October 2013

Written evidence submitted by GL Education Group (i) Executive Summary (ii) The GL Education Group is a leading provider of educational assessments, school management solutions and professional development services. Its portfolio includes assessments, such as the Cognitive Abilities Test (CAT), and school improvement tools including Kirkland Rowell Surveys for parents, staff and pupils and the school self-evaluation tool, Schoolcentre. In-depth interpretation services help to identify appropriate intervention strategies. (iii) The company’s Professional Development Services arm provides a range of training courses and modules for school leaders and governing bodies. This includes training for governing bodies on making links and cooperating with other schools. (iv) The increasing roll out of the academies and free schools programmes means that school partnerships and the development of school cooperation will likely become increasingly prevalent. It is important that where they develop, partnerships and cooperation arrangements are informed by an understanding of areas in need of speciﬁc work and that once introduced partnerships are supported by effective self-evaluation and monitoring systems, alongside formative assessments and quality, in-depth data analysis and interpretation. This will help to ensure that all partnerships are ultimately able to improve pupil progress and outcomes.

(v) Response (vi) The GL Education Group supports the introduction of school partnerships and cooperation, including federated governing bodies, as a positive way of sharing best practice and allowing weaker schools to benefit from the expertise of better performing schools. Academy trusts are becoming increasingly prevalent and such arrangements are also positive in areas where large numbers of schools have converted to academies. As the Local Authority (LA) role in such areas decreases as funding is reduced, it will be important for maintained schools to develop links with other similar schools to help mitigate the impact of any broader withdrawal of LA support. (vii) Such partnerships and cooperation arrangements can also be valuable for the sharing of resources, advice and best practice on specialised areas such as SEN provision. It can be difficult for one school to provide all the resources and support necessary in such areas, but by linking together schools can ensure that any pupils with specialised needs can be properly supported. (viii) In any partnership it will be vital that the schools involved have an effective data sharing, analysis and self-evaluation system in place both during the development of an arrangement and once the partnership has been finalised. This will ensure that school leadership, governing bodies and any other partnership leadership have a clear understanding of performance and can identify areas where improvements are needed in advance of and after the development of cooperation. (ix) To achieve this, partnerships, federated governing bodies and schools in less formal cooperation arrangements should use online self-evaluation systems such as Schoolcentre. Schoolcentre allows school leaders to manage effective self-evaluation programmes and the School Development Plan to engage the school and its stakeholders to achieve school improvement goals. This information will help school partnerships to make wide ranging improvements where necessary, share resources and best practice and monitor staff progress to inform the setting of performance-related pay. By implementing this type of system in advance of partnership arrangements as well as maintaining it once partnerships are established, schools can see where their strengths and weaknesses lie and identify how a partnership will benefit them in terms of support other schools can offer and the advice they can provide in return. This type of information is also invaluable in preparing schools for Ofsted inspections as the information on the progress of the School Development Plan and performance management etc. will always be consistently available no matter when an inspection may arise. (x) For example, in Croydon the STEP Academy Trust has used Schoolcentre to facilitate the schools’ improvement efforts by providing staff with an easy-to-use method of collaborating on school development plans, linking individuals to key action points and helping them identify priorities. The schools recognised the importance of good leadership and the need for the whole school community to work together to reach their improvement goals. Using Schoolcentre provided easy access to development plans and an effective means of progress tracking that has ultimately helped to improve attainment, impressing both parents and Ofsted alike.3 (xi) Similarly, as well as ensuring a system to monitor overall school development and staff performance, partnerships and federations should also ensure that they have systems in place to track pupil progress more 3 Further information on the STEP Academy Trust’s use of Schoolcentre is available on request. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w32 Education Committee: Evidence

specifically. For example, GO4 Schools is an online system that provides schools with an efficient database that tracks progress by subject, group and student as well as highlighting where further work needs to be undertaken. Accessing this kind of information in just one school can be difficult, let alone in a partnership, but this can be mitigated through the use of this type of online tracking system. Using systems like GO4 Schools and Schoolcentre in conjunction ensures that partnership leaders, governors and other key stakeholders are able to access information efficiently and therefore introduce improvement programmes quickly. Similarly, this information can also be useful during the development of a partnership so that schools can identify areas where links with other institutions may be beneficial to help bring about improvements as well as areas where they may have expertise to offer other schools. (xii) Although compiling progress and outcomes data across a partnership is important, it is vital that this information is then used effectively to bring about tangible improvements in pupil attainment. Where areas of weakness are identified best practice should be to use formative assessments to understand these further and provide the necessary support to bring about long-term improvements. For example, partnerships could use assessments like the Cognitive Abilities Test (CAT) to identify those pupils in need of additional support and then compare and contrast data between the schools in the partnership, to highlight any trends and to share interventions and best practice. CAT is currently used by over 50% of UK secondary schools. It cannot be prepared for as it measures underlying reasoning abilities and therefore provides schools with a comprehensive profile of a pupil’s developed abilities. CAT provides schools with a solid basis for introducing targeted interventions to improve pupil attainment in literacy and numeracy and should ideally be used in conjunction with other formative assessments. (xiii) Schools often use CAT in conjunction with Progress in Maths (PiM) and Progress in English (PiE) which assess attainment as well as ability levels in maths and English. By comparing these results to CAT scores, teachers can see where pupils are not yet reaching their potential and implement improvement strategies. The latest edition of CAT, CAT4, additionally assesses spatial reasoning abilities. These pupils often have an aptitude for STEM subjects but the way these and other subjects are taught makes it difficult for these pupils to learn. This is because teaching, even in STEM subjects, has a strong verbal bias which prevents pupils from playing to their strengths even in subjects where spatial ability is required. By identifying these pupils, and tailoring teaching and additional support accordingly, schools can help them to succeed in the subjects they have an aptitude for. Partnerships can also provide additional specialised support in these areas which individually schools may not have the resources to provide. Schools should therefore also consider using these types of formative assessment ahead of a partnership development to identify areas where they have a number of pupils in need of additional support and the other institutions which may have the expertise to help improve this provision. (xiv) Detailed reporting is provided for schools alongside CAT and this includes cluster reporting which has proved useful to academy chains, especially larger chains with in-house data teams who must report back to their schools and Government. This reporting provides information on results across the schools in a cluster, including analysis by gender, free school meal qualification etc., allowing leaders to compare and contrast the results by school, highlighting areas of strength and weaknesses in the group. This type of wide ranging and in-depth understanding of pupil abilities and potential is essential in partnerships of all sizes so that targeted interventions can be made and best practice shared amongst the schools to improve attainment across the group. (xv) Alongside these types of formative assessments it is also important that schools understand the data presented to them so that the information can be used properly, firstly when identifying and developing potential partnerships and then, once they have been established, to effectively bring about improvements. Using formative assessments like those provided by the GL Education Group and their accompanying analysis and interpretation services means that schools will not only be able to use the information obtained by assessing their own pupils but will also be able to utilise standardised data to compare their results to those from similar schools. This will be beneficial to schools already in a partnership to identify areas of strength and weakness but also to individual schools that may need support to make links with a similar school to share best practice and advice. This will be particularly helpful for those maintained schools impacted by a withdrawal of LA support in their area who wish to identify similar schools to link with. (xvi) The information obtained from these types of formative assessments should be included in online systems like GO4 Schools so that leadership teams can monitor the progress made following the identification of pupils in need of additional support. This is particularly important in weaker schools and better performing schools involved in partnerships should encourage this type of action to ensure improvements are made. This information can also be shared as part of a less formal cooperation arrangement. This will allow schools to share best practice on how to intervene with those pupils identified as in need of additional support and advise and support each other as interventions progress. This type of support will be particularly helpful for those maintained schools in areas with a large number of academies who may otherwise suffer from a reduction in LA support. (xvii) The success of any schools partnership, governing body federation or cooperation arrangement will also depend on effective communication with all stakeholders: parents, staff and pupils. Understanding stakeholder views can help school leadership identify areas for improvement, provide feedback on key aspects of development plans and evaluate satisfaction levels on the demonstration of a partnership’s core values. Different schools within a partnership will have different needs so it is important that such surveys can be cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w33

tailored to address these. For example, the Academies Enterprise Trust uses Kirkland Rowell Surveys across its group of schools to understand the areas that matter most to parents and pupils as well as staff attitudes to their work and the way their school is run. This has enabled actions to improve any areas of concern and ultimately this positive engagement has improved pupil attainment.4 (xviii) School partnerships and cooperation can be a valuable and useful means of sharing best practice, providing support to weaker schools and improving pupil outcomes. In order to be successful it is important that any partnerships are informed by an understanding of areas of strength and weakness and that once established they have an effective monitoring and self-evaluation system in place and make use of formative assessments supported by quality data interpretation and analysis. This will allow the identiﬁcation of areas in need of improvement, the best schools to partner with to address these areas, and an understanding of how best to intervene to bring these improvements about, ultimately serving to improve pupil progress and attainment. October 2013

Written evidence submitted by The National Union of Teachers (NUT) Introduction 1. The National Union of Teachers (NUT) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Education Committee Inquiry into School Partnerships and Cooperation. The NUT is the largest teachers’ union with 320,000 members teaching in a range of school types and settings across England and Wales and with direct experience of many types of school partnerships and cooperation and the beneﬁts and challenges they present.

The NUT’s View 2. The NUT supports collaboration between schools, and the wider education system, as a major driver of school (and system-wide) improvement. 3. School collaboration can challenge existing assumptions about what is possible with particular groups of learners, leading staff to re-think their expectations and, as a result, to think more creatively about new possibilities for supporting students’ learning. 4. All schools can learn from one another. Schools in challenging areas labelled “underperforming” may have particular expertise that could benefit schools that are perceived to be performing better. It is essential, therefore, that schools in partnerships are treated as equal partners rather than their influence and activity in the partnership being determined by Ofsted grade or league table position. 5. NUT members have been involved in developing and supporting a wide variety of school collaborations and partnerships. These include schools: sharing resources and/or working together to develop new pedagogical approaches; offering mutual support, eg moving teachers around to fill gaps; and working in behaviour partnerships to provide pupils at risk of exclusion a fresh start through a managed school transfer arrangement. In some areas, such as in Leicester, NUT members played a central role in shaping and implementing school improvement partnerships. 6. Local Authorities (LAs) have a key role to play in brokering and supporting these partnerships. Likewise central Government can play a strategic role in resourcing locally-led partnerships and training, developing and funding advisers and ensuring that new ideas and best practice initiatives can be captured and shared across different parts of the country. 7. However, evaluation evidence is clear that the most successful partnerships involve all the key partners in education and are characterised by a bottom-up approach to developing the real collaborative arrangements that are most suited to the local context. The most successful school partnerships are driven at a local level, are flexible, involve all local schools, engage the whole community around a shared vision, provide support and challenge without stigmatising weaker schools, work with families of schools, involve a degree of experimentation, develop organically according to local need and circumstance and are based on the notion of trust in teachers and school leaders. There is no “one-size fits all” model.

Partnershipson Pupil Behaviourand Excluded Pupils 8. It is essential that schools collaborate around pupil behaviour and school exclusions. The DfE’s three- year school exclusions’ trial running in 180 schools in 11 LAs continues until July 2014 but the interim evaluation report5 provides qualitative evidence that partnership working between schools has increased. It suggests the pilot has encouraged secondary schools to work in partnership with primaries on transition issues to support pupils at risk of permanent exclusion, that collaborative processes have become more rigorous and that the number of managed moves of pupils between schools has increased. 4 Further information on the Academies Enterprise Trust’s use of Kirkland Rowell Surveys is available on request. 5 Evaluation of the School Exclusion Trial (Responsibility for Alternative Provision for Permanently Excluded Children), First Interim Report, Research Brief, March 2013, Institute of Education (IoE) and the National Foundation for Educational Reseach (NFER), March 2013. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w34 Education Committee: Evidence

9. However, the pilot also revealed challenges, including the small number of schools where pupils might move to; perceived inequalities in the number of pupils that different schools had taken as part of managed moves; and different expectations of the behaviour that might lead to a managed move. This shows that pupil behaviour partnerships need targeted support and that all schools must operate on a level playing ﬁeld—a role that should be played by LAs. It is inconsistent to increase the LA role in the SEN framework and at the same time reduce LAs’ role in managing and assuring the quality of education for excluded pupils.

Federations 10. The NUT supports the idea of voluntary federation between schools. In the best cases such federations are capable of bringing about meaningful and lasting relationships between schools. 11. “Hard” Federations, in which schools are brought together under one governing body, raise problems of governance and manageability. The NUT regards “soft” Federations, in which collaborative arrangements between schools are established, as preferable. These might include joint meetings of governing bodies and joint committees. Soft Federations work well, for example, in situations where: small rural schools face closure; there are falling rolls in a local authority which threaten the closure of individual schools; or as a way of supporting a school in difﬁculty as an alternative to sponsored academy status. As a key principle, the main objective of bringing a group of schools together should be the sharing of expertise, resources and facilities. 12. However, the NUT is clear that Federations should not be imposed in order to cut costs or to make up for a shortage of head teachers. School communities, including staff and parents, must support the proposals, with teaching and support staff being involved in the discussion and decision-making at an early stage. The head teacher and all staff in the school, together with teachers’ professional bodies, should be fully consulted on any proposal to federate. 13. Furthermore, a proposed Federation should not impact negatively on job security, workload, pay or the conditions of service of teachers or support staff. Factors that require consideration include whether there are positive opportunities for collaboration of staff between schools for professional development; the extent to which posts established by a federated governing body or joint committee take into account travelling times between schools and time for consultation with staff appointed to individual schools within the Federation; and whether existing staff, appointed to individual schools, retain their job descriptions.

Teaching School Partnerships 14. Whilst the NUT has been a longstanding advocate of schools’ involvement in initial teacher education (ITE), it has serious concerns about the Government’s policy that Teaching School partnerships or “alliances” should take over Government’s responsibility for managing ITE over the next five to ten years. 15. Such an approach ignores the strategic oversight and planning needed to maintain a national system of ITE. There are additional practical issues, such as the capacity and ability of schools to assume responsibility for ITE and the financial capacity of lead schools to carry out their expected function given the small sums of additional funding provided to them for coordination purposes. 16. The policy may also lead to very specific ITE programmes which are more concerned with the needs of the individual school or group of schools than with those of the student or of the education system overall, especially in a landscape increasingly dominated by large academy chains and other private providers. 17. A key weakness of employment-based ITE routes has been variation in the quality of experience provided for trainees, with some having very little exposure to practice beyond their host school. The designation criteria for teaching schools could diminish opportunities for trainees to experience the demands and particular challenges of teaching in the full range of schools. Without such exposure during ITE, newly-qualified teachers’ scope for creativity and pedagogical thinking could be limited.

Roleof Head Teachers 18. Participation in school partnerships is a particularly demanding aspect of school leadership. A head teacher must decide whether to focus primarily on their own school’s performance or to look beyond the school gate. Unsurprisingly, many head teachers will chose the former approach since it is also the focus of their own performance evaluation. In addition, school leaders may not be well prepared to take on the challenges of leading collaboration beyond the school. This was recently recognised by the OECD which reported that: “In England, for example, where the systemic agenda has been moving forward quite quickly, teachers identified the need for better skills for the management of extended services as their most important future training requirement.”6 19. Head teachers must also mediate between two conflicting demands defined by the policy environment. On one hand heads are under unrelenting pressure to attract and retain pupils in competition with neighbouring schools. Schools which are at a disadvantage in terms of recruiting new pupils in turn face restrictions on their budget because of the current pupil-led funding formula. At the same time, head teachers are exhorted to work in greater partnership with the very schools with which they may be competing for pupils. 6 http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/40673692.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w35

20. Although alternative models such as federation may provide more opportunities for strategic leadership for the head teacher, they can also further distance the head from pupils and classrooms. There therefore has to be a clear limit to the extent of a head’s responsibilities to co-operate with and support other schools. 21. The NUT recommends that participation in national programmes designed to promote systemic leadership, such as the National and Local Leader of Education schemes, should not be assumed or statutorily required. Heads should not feel compromised between the demands of meeting the Government’s vision for partnership arrangements and fulﬁlling the demands placed on them in their own school.

The Roleof Local Authorities (LAs) 22. LAs, including their elected members, know their communities well and are in a unique position to develop and support models which both support those communities and will be supported by them. The NUT hopes that the Select Committee recognises the huge importance of putting local elected authorities with their roots in the community, regularly renewed and reviewed as they are, back at the heart of education. That is certainly the reason why some areas, such as Leeds and Leicester, have been able to develop and sustain extensive partnership working despite all the pressures to allow schools to disperse and become isolated. 23. The NUT believes that schools need to collaborate on equality projects and strategies to reduce stereotypes and prejudice. However, schools need support, advice and access to research ﬁndings. LA equality advisors historically provided this support function but these specialist advisory teachers have been disbanded.

Promoting Effective Partnerships in Leeds 24. NUT members have worked successfully with the local authority in Leeds to support partnership arrangements between schools. Leeds City Council does not promote one speciﬁc model of partnership but regards partnerships as effective and promotes these when they are built on trust. 25. Some partnerships have built upon and consolidated longstanding relationships between schools. For example, the Brigshaw Trust was established with the support of the LA, the full involvement and informed consent of all schools and with sensitivity to the needs and distinct role of the primary schools. 26. The LA has also developed a set of themed partnerships, eg organising schools around clusters to deliver a range of services which go beyond education and seek to ensure that children and families’ experience of these services is joined up. Children’s Centres and extended services are organised around cluster-working, which has broad support from all schools and can be reviewed by those who represent schools on a regular basis including through the Schools’ Forum. 27. In many parts of Leeds behaviour management is organised via Area Improvement Partnerships (AIPs) which, again, involve all key stakeholders, particularly schools, in ensuring appropriate provision both within school and in alternative settings. 28. The strength and effectiveness of AIPs and clusters varies across the city according to the level of commitment from schools. Leeds NUT members report that, while the LA encourages and has a preference for working through strong collaborations and partnerships, it does not impose these on schools. Schools are free to determine their own level of involvement in partnerships, and the main pressure to do so tends to come from the example of those schools that appear to thrive on collaboration.

Transforming Learning in Leicester—A Collaborative Approach 29. In 2007 the Labour Government threatened to outsource Leicester’s education function and turn all its schools into sponsored academies because of what the DCSF identified as the systematic “failure” of the city’s schools as measured by national examination results. 30. Instead, Leicester City Council, its schools, teachers and trade unions set out to establish: “…a model for school improvement that was sustainable, began from the distinctive needs of Leicester as one of the most racially mixed and most deprived cities in the UK and could lift the performance not just of those schools in challenging circumstances, but of all schools.”7 31. By the summer of 2012, no community secondary school in Leicester was below the benchmark of 40% of students achieving five grade A*-C GCSEs including maths and English. Just four primary schools were below the matching KS2 benchmark. 32. Peter Flack, Assistant Secretary of City of Leicester NUT, wrote a case study on the city’s collaborative working initiative in which he notes that, while the challenge from the DCSF sought improvement only in the performance data for GCSEs and KS2 SATs, the key stakeholders in Leicester’s education community recognised that a more holistic approach was required for genuinely sustainable change to take place.8 33. Data from the Foundation Stage profiles showed that children in Leicester were performing 25% below the national average in a range of key areas. This disadvantage carried through in to KS1 and beyond. It was 7 School Improvement, A Leicester Case Study in Collaborative Working, October 2012, Peter Flack, page 2 8 School Improvement, A Leicester Case Study in Collaborative Working, October 2012, Peter Flack cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w36 Education Committee: Evidence

therefore agreed that the Early Years and Foundation Stage should be added to the range of interventions and that a strategy for Primary education as a whole was also required.

34. There was a matching focus on Leicester’s teachers and education staff with Leadership Development and teachers’ continuing professional development (CPD) an integral part of the transformation package.

35. In December 2007 the Transforming Leicester’s Learning (TLL) Overview Board was established. This came to include representatives of the LA, the DCSF, the Government Ofﬁce for the East Midlands, the National Strategies, head teachers, governors, local politicians from all three main parties, post-16 education providers and the teaching unions. The TLL project emphasised long term, sustainable improvements and functioned as a set of core assumptions about how to effect change. According to Mr Flack, these were that: — “School improvement is about educational learning processes rather than structures and buildings. The most important aspect of any improvement strategy is the quality of the interactions that take place in the classroom between teachers and pupils. — Solutions that empower and engage stakeholders are more powerful than ones which seek to impose externally determined structures on those stakeholders. Solutions imposed from the outside are rarely seen as being “owned” by those who must deliver them. — Flexible, collaborative arrangements amongst schools and between those schools and Local Authority support services are more cost effective and fruitful than piece-meal interventions at an individual school level. — Arrangements that encourage creativity, innovation and the sharing of expertise and good practice are the best framework for achieving lasting change.”9

36. TLL’s ﬁrst step was to identify the barriers to learning that were particular to Leicester and its schools: Child poverty; low levels of literacy; the need to provide bespoke services to particular migrant groups; and meeting the needs of pupils with SEN whilst maintaining a commitment to inclusion where possible and high- quality special school provision where appropriate.

37. The TLL Overview Board rapidly introduced a series of initiatives ranging from additional support for Foundation Stage pupils to aid the development of basic communication, language (CLL) and social skills; to academic coaching and mentoring for Y11 students; and whole school support from the LA for schools that were causing concern or seeking assistance.

38. Collaborative working initiatives involved a number of models: Hard Federations; “Soft” Federations, involving multiple schools facing similar challenges and drawing on funding to support co-appointed intervention staff; School Partnerships, in which schools in challenging circumstances teamed to work with up to two other schools that did not face similar challenges and had resources/expertise that could be shared with the “partner” school; Curriculum Partnerships, either across the city, within neighbourhoods or within types of schools; Collaborative Networks involving groups of schools with similar challenges supported by LA intervention teams; Enabling Collaboratives, established and ﬁnanced collectively by groups of schools to carry out particular shared tasks or functions; Inclusion Partnerships in which special schools were linked with two or more mainstream schools to widen inclusion through dual registration, supporting out-reach work and inclusive practice in mainstream schools; and the Leicester Teaching School (LETS), involving multiple schools, the LA and teaching unions to provide ITT plus training for SLE’s and other lead teachers who were then deployed to schools across the city.

39. In March 2008 the city’s teaching unions called for a “literacy crusade”. This resulted in the launch of the “Whatever it Takes” (WIT) literacy pledge in October 2009. WIT is universally popular with Leicester city schools and pupils with its programme now including a community literature festival aimed at parents called “Everybody’s Reading”.

Roleof Government

40. Government can play a central role in facilitating school partnerships and cooperation by working with LAs and schools to ensure they have the resources and access to support and advice that they need to develop successful partnerships, drawing out the lessons of success and ensuring that these can be utilised elsewhere.

41. Government’s role should not, however, be one of imposing such initiatives but one of encouraging and facilitating a bottom-up approach.

42. Most recently, the nationally-funded School Sports’ Partnership proved highly successful in linking up secondary schools with their local primary schools and sharing and developing resources and expertise in school sport. It is indefensible and short sighted that the ring-fenced funding for this hugely successful programme was ended by the current Government in 2010. 9 School Improvement, A Leicester Case Study in Collaborative Working, October 2012, Peter Flack, page 4 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w37

Case Study—City Challenge 43. Another example of a recent successful school improvement initiative is the City Challenge Programme which ran in Birmingham, the Black Country and London from 2008–11. City Challenge built on the success of the London Challenge which began in 2003 and which adopted many of the same approaches. 44. London Challenge was a five-year strategy which aimed to improve results in London secondary schools (and also ran in some primary schools from 2006). It was a partnership between central government, local government, schools and other key players in London. The first Commissioner for London Schools, Tim Brighouse, played a central role in shaping the Challenge. According to the The Department for Education (DfE) evaluation report of the programme: “It differed from previous school improvement initiatives in that it was in many ways flexible and experimental; a wide range of new approaches were tried, and those that did not work were changed or abandoned.”10 45. A key element was the appointment of Challenge advisors employed directly by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) who brought together those already working with schools into a single team to diagnose schools’ areas of weakness and draw up and implement improvement plans. 46. The weakest schools were designated “Keys to Success” schools, reflecting a deliberate emphasis “on ‘support and challenge’ rather than schools being identified as failing.”11 47. 2012 GCSE results show that London was the best performing region for the fourth successive year, by a wide range of measures. This is despite serving some of the most deprived areas in the country—35% of secondary pupils in Inner London are eligible for Free School Meals (FSM) compared with just 13% outside London.12 48. According to Professor Merryn Hutchings, Lead Author of the DfE evaluation report, the following characteristics of the programme were central to its success.13 — It encouraged sharing of practice across LA boundaries and aimed to unite schools, parents, community organisations and other stakeholders behind it. — It aimed to improve all local schools, not simply the lowest attaining. School collaborations were central to the programme, and it was important to have some schools with outstanding practice that others could learn from. — Experimentation and innovative approaches were encouraged; there was no set prescription of what would work to improve schools. — The notion that schools could learn from each other was central. Both heads and teachers argued that they learned most effectively from seeing good practice. — The weakest schools received the most funding while other schools received smaller sums which were typically used to buy cover to release staff to visit other schools. — Part of the funding was also used for central administration; to identify and target schools in need of support; broker partnerships; and organise conferences. — Perhaps the most effective aspect of City Challenge was that it recognised that individuals and school communities tend to thrive when they feel trusted, supported and encouraged. 49. Professor Hutchings concludes: “The evidence that the London Challenge was a successful approach to school improvement is overwhelming” and notes that its funding over three years was £160 million, “considerably cheaper than the £8.5 billion reportedly spent on the academies programme over two years.”14 50. Despite the clear evidence of the success of the City Challenge model, its approach has not continued under the current Government which has instead chosen to continue the punitive “naming and shaming” of schools judged purely on the basis of raw data outcomes. It is worth noting that while the research evidence is clear that the City Challenge initiative produced measurable and sustainable school improvement, there is no such evidence base for the academies programme.15

Challengesto Collaboration 51. School collaboration is not a simple strategy that automatically brings about success. It can be complex and time consuming and may not always be successful. Neither is it cost neutral: many activities require 10 DfE Research Report DFE-RR215, Evaluation of the City Challenge Programme, Professor Merryn Hutchings et al, August 2012, pp 1–2. 11 DfE Research Report DFE-RR215, Evaluation of the City Challenge Programme, Professor Merryn Hutchings et al, August 2012, page 1. 12 Schools Pupils and their Characteristics, DfE, January 2012, cited in “Why is Attainment Higher in London Than Elsewhere?”, Professor Merryn Hutchings, 2013, NUT website www.teachers.org.uk/node/17429 13 “Why is Attainment Higher in London Than Elsewhere?”, Professor Merryn Hutchings, 2013, NUT website www.teachers.org.uk/node/17429 14 “Why is Attainment Higher in London Than Elsewhere?”, Professor Merryn Hutchings, 2013, NUT website www.teachers.org.uk/node/17429 15 Unleashing Greatness, Getting the Best from An Academised System, The Report of the Academies Commission, Pearson/RSA, January 2013, see chapter 2 “Academisation and School Improvement” cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w38 Education Committee: Evidence

teacher time, both during and beyond the school day, as well as support staff administration and co-ordination. All of these may deplete the time and effort available for staff to focus on their own school and students. 52. Currently, however, the single biggest challenge to collaboration is the Government’s marketised approach to education which is resulting in greater competition, rather than collaboration, between schools. As more schools become their own admission authorities and as schools are increasingly judged according to outcomes and ranked in league tables, competition is likely to increase rather than decrease. 53. Examples provided in this written evidence offer different, yet demonstrably successful, alternative approaches to the Government’s focus on structural solutions to school underperformance. The challenge for government is to draw on these and the many other successful examples of school collaboration and recognise that there are alternatives to the one-size-ﬁts-all academies model. October 2013

Written evidence submitted by SCiP5, Education and Media RE: EDUCATION COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS AND COOPERATION I feel I have a unique perspective to share: I have been a teacher and a school leader for thirty years, usually, and by choice, in some of the most deprived and challenging communities in England; I have been CEO of a large Awarding Organisation, with a network representing six thousand schools, colleges, academies and training providers across the country; I am a curriculum innovator, constantly looking for tools, approaches, concepts and ideas that add value to the learning journey, and help young people to consistently exceed expectations.

Summary The co-operative approach to school leadership and governance is a diamond in the rough, with exceptional potential and continuing to grow stronger, more extensive and more effective with every passing term. I say this because, in school organisation terms, the co-operative network is comparatively new, and is still learning how best to apply one hundred and ﬁfty years of social and commercial heritage to address a twenty- ﬁrst century phenomenon, the breakup of the state education system. With the fragmentation of local school organization, command and control, the co-operative model offers a vibrant and credible alternative to the growth of academy chains or independent academy status, and to the dead hand of ineffective local authority leadership where it exists as such. The co-operative approach also goes far beyond school organization and process. It has the potential to permeate every part of school and community life. In an era where we are constantly searching for ways to connect young people to their locality, to their accountabilities and to their democratic responsibilities, the values-rich and faith-neutral co-operative framework gives a school and its community a rich toolkit to bring the coalition’s vision of a “Big Society” vibrantly to life.

1. On the differing forms of school partnership and cooperation, and whether they have particular advantages and disadvantages 1.1 Local Accountability The stakeholder model for co-operatives forces local accountability and ownership into the very heart of leadership and governance in a way that no other model does. With this comes empowerment, a key tool for a community to become master of its own destiny; 1.2 National Network I believe that there are approaching 500 primary secondary and special schools, academies and colleges now in the co-operative network, which is pretty staggering given the time-scale. The Schools Co-operative Society supports these schools to develop and grow. I also believe that the “joining costs” are minimal, allowing schools to invest their resources inwardly, rather than suffering significant top- slicing that is characteristic of nearly all academy chains; 1.3 “Not for Profit” This is a genuine statement of intent within co-operatives; let us be clear, the private business sector is “for profit”, it is defined as such; business and commerce is interested in running schools because they are sources of secure revenue. We are now astute enough to realise that a merchant banker interested in running a chain of academies will not declare a “profit” as such, but will make absolutely sure that every service contract from insurance to heating and lighting is generating profit… for years and years. Co-operative business, and the birth of “new mutuals” is beginning to challenge the capitalist world view. A basic tenant of capitalism is competition; a free market needs competition from co-operatives to keep it honest!

2. On how highly performing schools could better be encouraged to cooperate with others 2.1 Co-operative models are based on mutual aid, sharing responsibility for working with other schools, especially those under some pressure. “We’re all in this together”; “mutually we are stronger together” are cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w39

typical of the reasons given by co-operative school leaders for deciding on the model. This includes a view that schools should work together and take responsibility jointly for securing school improvement. There is also a recognition that working co-operatively helps to avoid duplication and distractions allowing school leaders especially to better focus on the effective leadership of teaching and learning. 2.2 We also need to redeﬁne what “high performing” means. The narrow performance measures that dominate Ofsted ratings do little to identify what is sometimes outstanding practice. Some schools, serving really challenging communities, perform herculean feats to enable progress at national rates… but from a very low starting point. The equity of standing in school co-operatives enable a true celebration and spreading of good practice, irrespective of where it is.

3. On whether schools have sufficient incentives to form meaningful and lasting relationships with other schools 3.1 Standalone academies, or academies as part of chains, have very little incentive to help the school around the corner. The entire philosophy that drives the current round of free school, UTC, convertor and forced academy programmes revolves around generating surplus places so that “good” and “successful” schools fill up, and “weaker” schools wither and perish. 3.2 Co-operative schools serve their communities, are accountable directly to their wider communities, and therefore embedded deeply in their values and principles is the concept of building deep, long-lasting and effective relationships, for the good of the community. 3.3 A decrease in Local Authority influence Strong local co-operative partnerships can jointly support and commission the school improvement services that may have been the province of the local authority.

4. If and how the potential tension between school partnership and cooperation, and school choice and competition can be resolved 4.1 For society to have 100% conﬁdence in the education system, we should aspire to every school being a good school. In a competitive system, where schools are ranked using normative measures, as is the case today, and has been since the dawn of school league tables, there will always be winners and losers: there is no possibility whatsoever of every school becoming a good school, even if the schools lower down the rankings are improving. And if you improve, someone else will suffer in the rankings. This is a completely unacceptable state of affairs 4.2 Co-operation and partnership changes the mind-set, is values-driven, and sees schools working for the common good of their wider communities, not just for their pupils.

5. On whether converter academies’ requirements to support other schools, included in their funding agreements, are sufﬁcient and are effectively policed 5.1 I have not sufﬁcient expertise or knowledge in this area to make a valid contribution

6. On whether academies sponsored by another school receive sufﬁcient support from their sponsor 6.1 Again, I have little data to go on to form a clear opinion

7. On whether school partnerships drive effective school improvement 7.1 School Partnerships can drive school improvement. The London Challenge initiative is a case in point. Co-operative partnerships can also unlock considerable potential through combined use of skills and resources. I have seen quoted a great example of this, in a recent Ofsted monitoring visit report: “The school is part of a collaborative trust comprising several local primary schools and the local high school. Collectively, they are providing some effective leadership, teaching and learning and assessment support, advice and guidance which are helping to accelerate the school’s improvement. By pooling resources, they have made a number of joint appointments, including literacy and numeracy strategy leaders to embed excellent practice across the trust and boost pupils’ achievement”. (Great Preston VC 26/3/13)

8. On whether there are any additional upsides or downsides for highly performing schools supporting others through partnerships 8.1 As stated in 2.2, the real problem is the need to redeﬁne what “high performing” means. The narrow performance measures that dominate Ofsted ratings do little to identify what is sometimes outstanding practice. Some schools, serving really challenging communities, perform herculean feats to enable progress at national rates… but from a very low starting point. The equity of standing in school co-operatives enable a true celebration and spreading of good practice, irrespective of where it is. October 2013 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w40 Education Committee: Evidence

Written evidence submitted by Collaborative Schools Ltd (CSL)

Executive Summary

This response provides the historical context and motivations for 21 Trowbridge area schools to form a charitable company, Collaborative Schools Ltd (CSL) in April 2012. It seeks to illustrate the rationale and issues faced, as well as the vision for its existence. It shows that developing the partnership was a slow process, where trust between members and a shared purpose were organic. It explains how the substantial funding to deliver a key Government agenda provided the greatest impetus for collaboration and thus changed the way the schools worked and related to each other. Finding the right mechanism to enable a formal collaboration was not an easy journey with limited advice or support available; it took a degree of tenacity and persistence to achieve it, as well as ﬁnancial and personnel capacity. This background provides the basis from which CSL then responds to the questions posed by the Education Committee. To more directly answer the questions, they have been personalised to reﬂect on the organisation, actions and behaviour of CSL.

The structure of the partnership provides for shared liability and shared ownership through democratic participation; however, this is limited as it is not entirely autonomous. CSL provides a wide range of activities that contribute to school improvement that are effectively made through economies of scale and the motivation to meet local needs. These are met in the main in the short term through legacy funding; however, there are concerns about the sustainability of the activity without sufﬁcient future funding to support the infrastructure and to manage the balance between fundraising/income generating activity, in order to meet CSL’s needs.

There is a compelling moral incentive for collaboration whilst recognising that like any relationship, it needs to be worked at, together with an understanding that more than goodwill is required to ensure its sustainable future.

A number of strategies and agreements have enabled potential tensions between partner schools regarding school choice and competition to be moderated. These are described below.

1. Background and Context

1.1 Collaborative Schools Ltd (CSL) is a partnership of 21 Trowbridge schools (three secondary, one special and 17 primary). There are three converter academies and two sponsored academies in the partnership with nine Foundation schools (VC & VA). The schools serve the area of Trowbridge, Wiltshire’s County town, and surrounding villages, having close to 6,600 on roll. The Index of Multiple Deprivation indicates that two Trowbridge wards are in the 20% most deprived in the country. 1,240 (19%) of Children and Young People (C&YP) in the schools are eligible for the Pupil Premium.

2. Recent history of Partnership

2.1 There was some history of co-operation amongst some of the schools for a number of years via regular meetings of head teachers. It was with the onset of the ES agenda, especially from ~2008–09, that a more systematic approach to collaboration emerged both between CSL schools and a wide range of statutory and voluntary sector support services and professionals. The arrangement for the delivery and co-ordination of ES in Wiltshire allowed for funding to be devolved to community areas via a lead school, where a multi-agency steering group and a salaried co-ordinator ensured that the Government’s agenda was realised and met local needs. The funding levels were high enough to encourage a sharing of focus and vision for early intervention and targeted support, between schools and support agencies; the Local Authority’s (LA) Extended Services ensured Government requirements were met and provided accountability. This new way of partnership working occurred in parallel to a stronger sense of co-operation between head teachers which had been built following a residential conference early in 2010 supported by the LA, focussing on collaborative partnerships. There were sufﬁcient head teachers with a similar mind set and shared focus to enable effective future partnership development.

2.2 Partnership working was further strengthened when Trowbridge Extended Services was successful in receiving additional funding to be a Pathfinder for the Disadvantage Subsidy Scheme in 2009, aimed at providing out of school hours activities for children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Locally branded as Free Time, it drew together all of the schools in an area-wide initiative. An independent review carried out by Newcastle University applauded its success and said, “…the commitment demonstrated by schools, support agencies and activity providers to work together in partnership”, was a significant reason. The high funding levels, the existing infrastructure and the potential benefits for the eligible children and young people all provided the incentive for the enhanced collaboration.

2.3 Through the ES Capital programme, a dedicated building was constructed on land at the edge of the lead school. This had a clear remit to be shared with all schools in the area to facilitate ES activities. This building became a great asset to the collaborative as it provided an independent physical base and ofﬁce location for staff. The building was transferred on a lease with a peppercorn rent to CSL from the lead school (an academy) on the establishment of CSL and is now regarded as a great shared asset. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w41

2.4 At this point, the schools decided to form a loose partnership called TASC (Trowbridge Area Schools Collaborative), to provide a structure through which they could operate more formally beyond the ES remit and the Extended Services Network Co-ordinator (ESNC) provided some capacity to facilitate the shared activities. It was agreed to conﬁrm the ESNC as a permanent full time member of staff with some admin assistance. The arrangement however was limiting in that there was no easy way of sharing liability. The responsibility for employing the ESNC and other personnel together with the risks associated with the activities of the partnership were vested in the one lead school. Additionally, there were no formal bonds between the schools and the strength of the relationship was entirely based on trust.

2.5 With the impending central Government funding for ES through the LA about to cease and with it, central LA services and co-ordination, there was encouragement and support from the LA ES team to seek an autonomous and sustainable way forward. There was a clear desire from the head teachers to ﬁnd a way of shaping the future together, who understood from past experiences that more could be achieved through working together.

2.6 Presented with a number of options, it was decided that a legally constituted structure be established and as the collaborative wished to become a registered charity, the best form to suit its needs was to incorporate and register as a company limited by guarantee. Had the Charitable Incorporated Organisation form been available at the time as expected, it would have been CSL’s preferred choice.

2.7 Funding and personnel resource to help the collaborative work through the process of creating the sustainable model was forthcoming from the LA’s Extended Services and together with the ESNC, they were instrumental in following the process through, with a small steering group of head teachers.

2.8 Extensive research showed little experience of this type of arrangement. Advice was sought externally through local and national social enterprise support organisations and other established school clusters. The LA had no experience of this situation and were challenged in their ability to advise and how to enable (or prohibit) the process. Eventually it was deemed possible through the School Company Regulations 2002. There were few places to go to ﬁnd advice or assistance with this process. The regulations were not a good ﬁt for the purposes; however, in the absence of any other provision, it was agreed that they could be worked within. The collaborative had to push boundaries and remove barriers at every turn to achieve this. A local co-operative development agency provided the governance and business advice and together with Co-operatives UK, the services to facilitate incorporation and charity registration. Schemes of delegation and codes of conduct to supplement the Articles of Association were created.

2.9 A business case could be made as there was substantial legacy funding from the ES allocation. CSL knew of examples elsewhere, where in similar situations the money had been divided amongst the schools once the accountability through the LA was removed. In TASC’s situation, there was a sense that partnership working would provide economies of scale. A commitment from schools to pay a per pupil on roll rate subscription, the possibility of income generation through the sale of services and potential future opportunities for funding through charitable funding streams, provided assurances that there was a sustainable future.

2.10 The partnership was ofﬁcially registered as a company limited by guarantee on 1 April 2012 as Collaborative Schools Ltd (CSL) and charitable status followed in May 2012, with each of the member schools being joint owners. Staff members were TUPED to the new company.

2.11 On establishment, the company’s objects were identiﬁed as: To promote and advance the education of children, young people and their families, especially within the wider Trowbridge community by: (a) Supporting the development and maintenance of a sustainable, self-improving and progressive school system. (b) Supporting positive personal achievements and outcomes. (c) Reducing barriers to learning, enhancing health and well-being and raising aspirations. (d) Promoting such other charitable purposes that may on occasion be determined.

2.12 CSL now provides a core offer that all member schools can access free of charge and an optional offer where economies of scale allow for procurement of services at a more preferential rate or with sufﬁcient volume to make it viable.

2.13 CSL now employs 4 members of staff and contracts 3 others. It is intending to employ an Education Psychologist from September 2013.

2.14 CSL produced its first end of year report at the end of April with an annual meeting. A summary of the first year’s activities are listed in Appendix 2. It is clear that the challenges in reduction in services from LA have been managed in the past year. The platform in terms of personnel, systems and infrastructure is in place to continue to fill these gaps; however, there are concerns about the medium to long term sustainability without adequate funding to assure this. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w42 Education Committee: Evidence

3 What are the advantages and disadvantages of CSL in its constituted form? 3.1 As a company limited by guarantee with charitable status and a governance structure that allows for democratic participation (see Appendix 1) the following are benefits/advantages: — Shared ownership—the schools are the registered owners of CSL not individual people. — Shared responsibility—vested across all schools. — A common identity—branding, website etc. — A shared focus—annual review. — Ability to employ staff in the name of CSL. — Shared resources, knowledge, expertise—through Learning Communities. — Continuing Professional Development and Training—additionally motivated by one of CSL’s schools being a Teaching School. Ensures local needs met in way we want, with facilitators we choose. — Economies of scale—shared procurement and services. — Transparency—all meetings open, minutes taken and freely available. — Self-accountability—CSL sets its own standards of judgement. — Open dialogue between schools and partners—multiple formal and informal opportunities. — Money mainly recycled within partnership and recognised partners giving local sustainability. — Democratic operation which is critically impartial and where no one school can dominates— every voice can be heard. — Reporting requirements to Companies House and Charity Commission ensures appropriate governance and financial practices. 3.2 The following are limitations/disadvantages: — Lack of total autonomy. The LA can determine whether schools become members or not (School Company Regulations 2002) and have rights to information on finances. — No external accountability for the partnership working. — Limited impact currently, for effective school to school/peer to peer support—need more involvement earlier when a school is likely to be placed in a category. — Inequality of contribution ie expertise/time/staff—inevitably the larger schools take on a bigger role, which needs to be managed well to prevent them actually or being perceived to be dominant/taken for granted. — Need to manage pressures of revenue generation through provision of external services against needs of own member schools. — CSL is for some schools a second or third partnership they are a member of. For example, the Foundation schools have their own networks as do the sponsored academies. This must be recognised in the expectations of these schools to play a full and active role.

4. How can highly performing schools be encouraged to co-operate better with others? Are there are any upsides or downsides for highly performing schools supporting others through partnerships 4.1 The pressure and desire for highly performing schools to maintain and not compromise their own performance limits their capacity to support other schools through partnerships. Financial incentives could alleviate this. 4.2 CSL recognises that there are highly skilled practitioners in every school. An alternative view would be to enable the mobilisation of talent across a partnership of schools. This is a challenge, as borne out by current beneficial limited practice. The biggest issue is how to cover absent staff when out supporting other schools and how to manage the transactions. The potential and benefit of this is unquestioned. Without funding and a co-ordinator it is unrealisable. 4.3 CSL recognises the benefit of teachers at all levels seeing different models of delivery. This could be facilitated across a partnership if funding were available to enable it.

5. Are there sufﬁcient incentives for member schools to form meaningful and lasting relationships with other schools in the cluster? If yes, what are they? If no, or not enough, what incentives would schools like? 5.1 The moral incentives and the understanding of the beneﬁts of partnership working exist. 5.2 The demise of the LA and its services is a great incentive to promote collaboration in order to enable schools to survive the ever increasing environment of change and challenge. Being part of a cohesive partnership is better than being a single, potentially isolated school. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w43

5.3 Experience has shown that it is a long journey and requires hard work and commitment to get to the point at which rewards can be enjoyed. The early stages are challenging and without some funding to facilitate the process of building the community, it is less likely to happen. An early strength in the CSL partnership was on account of the funding legacy from ES and a desire to get the best value from it. There was funding and staff in post to enable the development and setting up of an ambitious action plan. 5.4 Once the partnership is formed, many incentives are self-generating; however, there is a need for a driver and for active motivated members to maintain the momentum, as well as for sufficient funding to enable innovation. 5.4 A strength in meaningful and lasting relationships is the identification and recognition of common needs and issues. It is the capacity to facilitate the identification of these in a systematic way to enable effective action that is a requirement; this needs capacity and therefore funding to be realised. 5.5 The reliance on goodwill alone to make partnerships meaningful and lasting can result in an imbalance in giving and receiving. The partnership is weakened if members see the partnership as just being there to dip in and out of when there is something to be gained. There could be some internal recognition process that rewards giving. 5.6 The size of the partnership could be critical. CSL is large with 21 schools and there is scope for people to pull in different directions and smaller allegiances to be formed within the larger group.

6. How does tension between CSL member schools regarding school choice and competition get resolved or is limited? 6.1 Since the formation of TASC, primary schools have been less zealous at competitively recruiting pupils to their schools. There have been some difﬁcult discussions. The trust and friendships developed between individual heads through being a member of partnership have helped mitigate this. This has corresponded with a bulge in birth rates, which has reduced the pressures to ﬁll schools. 6.2 CSL has an agreement between member schools that if a child’s parents want to move their child and they approach another school, that this school informs the child’s current school, so that there is an opportunity to resolve any issues that may be stimulating the desired change. 6.3 The LA determines the catchment areas of non-academy member schools. CSL member schools have an agreement in their code of conduct which requires them to be considerate of neighbouring schools when promoting their own school, particularly in not denigrating another school. 6.4 All primary children are taken to see both secondary schools at appropriate times early in Year 6 (the third secondary school is a Catholic school). 6.5 A “Fair Access Panel” made up of head teachers from every school discuss challenging placements and facilitate managed moves as necessary.

7. Does being a member of CSL help drive effective school improvement and if so how? 7.1 The existence of CSL is helping drive school improvement in the following ways: — Joint Continuing Professional Development (CPD) provides more opportunities tailored to meet needs—see appendix 2 for details. — The Learning Communities provide opportunities for networking and sharing of knowledge and experience. — The capacity to undertake bigger projects and engage quality facilitators/consultants in activities that some smaller schools wouldn’t be able to access without. — The pooling of funding and resources brings about economies of scale that can, for example, provide funding for the release of staff in addition to meeting training costs. — The head teachers have formed small groups to provide support and challenge to each other. CSL recognises the need for heads to be comfortable enough with each other to be able to challenge. — The opportunity to access new funding streams to support school improvement, that individual schools would not have had the capacity or capability to manage. — Joint observations of practice have been organised across settings and phases. — Benchmarking opportunities amongst its schools. — Formal and informal school to school support has increased. — Instant access to advice from peers. — Keeping up to date through regular meetings of peers. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w44 Education Committee: Evidence

— The NQT programme developed by CSL schools to meet needs. It engages a high level of reﬂective practice. Early feedback from participants indicates it has been well received and effective. — Member schools have a protocol which allows for data on performance, attendance, MOSAIC etc. across both phases to be collated and shared amongst all schools. It is used to demonstrate year on year progress and analysed in order to inform strategy. 7.2 Future developments include: — The opportunities to set up local inspections—peer reviews between OFSTED inspections. — Devising more effective ways of sharing practice, insights and information at all levels. — Becoming more rigorous in school to school support, not just about being “soft” in how this is done but more challenging in helping each other “get over the bar”. — Encouraging professional excitement about quality. 7.3 In providing school-to-school support, it is recognised that those involved need the skills to work with other adults in this way. Being good at what they do is not enough. 7.4 CSL recognises that some of the collaborative activity that was new and innovative is now embedded and part of common routines. There are already multiple examples of improvements. There is the intention to undertake a number of evaluations during the summer of 2013 which will provide reﬂective feedback on joint activity for 2013–04.

8. Are converter academies’ requirements to support other schools, included in their funding agreements, sufﬁcient and effectively policed? 8.1 The experience of CSL member schools is no. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w45

APPENDIX 1 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w46 Education Committee: Evidence

APPENDIX 2

EXTRACTED FROM THE END OF FIRST YEAR REPORT

1. Training

(i) Continuing Professional Development (CPD) provided through Collaborative Schools is intentionally organised not to provide a surplus and will typically be discounted or free to participants from member schools. The following courses have been run this year:

(ii) Compliance: — Safer handling. — First Aid at Work. — Paediatric First Aid. — Minibus driving. — SERCO ﬁre safety.

(iii) Teaching and learning: — Phonics.

Four courses were organised, each attended by an average of 20 participants, from both cluster non-cluster schools. — Spelling, grammar and punctuation.

The training programme consists of a cross phase overview for senior leaders, followed by four separate training sessions at each phase. One course was run during year and there are plans in place for further delivery. — Talk for Writing.

A programme of engagement with a number of member schools. — Improving Teacher Programme (ITP).

This six session programme has been designed for teachers who want to advance, develop and improve their teaching and deliver consistently good lessons. The initial cohort was focused on teachers in KS1, KS2 and Y7 within KS3. One course has been run this year. — Outstanding Teacher Programme (OTP).

This nine session programme aims to give good and outstanding teachers a set of high level skills and strategies that enables them become consistently and sustainably outstanding. One course was organised during the year. — Specialist Leaders for Education (SLE).

This has involved 10 outstanding members of staff from middle and senior management, developing their skills to support other staff in similar roles. — Practice Development Partners (PDP).

This programme has been piloted with the intention of a wider roll out from September 2013. The programme develops the conﬁdence and skill set of teaching staff allowing them to offer peer to peer support. — NQT.

(iv) Leadership and management: — OFSTED update.

(v) Behaviour & Inclusion: — Money Matters—Welfare Reform (Wiltshire Money). — Hidden Sentence—impact on children when parents go to prison.

(vi) Other: — Effective grant writing (open as income generating opportunity to non CSL member schools).

(vii) Governors: — Health & Well Being. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w47

2. Learning Communities & Joint Practice Development (JPD) Learning Communities comprise groups of staff, interested in developing their knowledge and expertise in a specialist area through joint practice development. The Communities or Forums usually have between 10–15 members who meet termly and provide opportunities for local networking, sharing practice and exploring and developing relevant pedagogies. Needs driven, they exist in the following areas and have proven to be effective, responsive and time efﬁcient in providing staff development for schools. — Literacy. — Maths. — Early Literac. — ICT. — PE. — PSA network. — School Business Managers. — SENCO. — Early Years. — Head teacher Support and Challenge Triads.

3. PartnershipWorking We have developed relationships with a range of partners to maximise the impact of our work. These mainly contribute to and continue to strengthen the work of the Every Child Matters and Community Partnership group. Some examples of our partnership working include: — The Ethnic Minority Advisory Service (EMAS) who work with us on the English as an Additional Language forums (EAL). These forums bring together parents whose English is their second language and provide translated information on current issues. — Hope Debt Advisory Service. A face to face money advice service, operating weekly out of the Hub, providing free debt counselling to our families. — The Multi Agency Forum. This provides a co-ordinated, connected and informed response to the needs of children and their families with issues that generally have not been addressed successfully through other means. The termly meetings are attended by school representatives and up to 15 partner agencies.

4. Hub Access The Hub, as well as acting as the company ofﬁces, is heavily used for CSL activities and by member schools. External lettings to our partners, generates useful income however the challenge is to ensure an appropriate balance.

5. TransitionWork A clear beneﬁt of working across primary and secondary schools, allows for planned transition work between phases. The following have been developed, established or consolidated this year: — A common transfer form (CTF). This was developed by a group of senior teachers from member schools. Being produced to meet our needs, it ensures the most appropriate information is shared with secondary schools at the point of transfer. — Year 5 taster days. These provide the opportunity for pupils from this year group to visit our secondary schools. — Summer camp—targeting children from economically disadvantaged families — Cross phase visits. These provide staff with a co-ordinated opportunity to visit primary or secondary schools as appropriate. Visits can include — Learning walks, pupil tracking and curriculum awareness.

6. Health & Well Being & Emotional Resilience Project The project was commissioned by NHS Public health as a pathﬁnder to seek ways to optimise and improve the support offered to young people growing up in Trowbridge in promoting their health, well-being and emotional resilience (H&WB and ER). It is providing for research to scope and review needs alongside current supportive practice and service provision to identify any gaps and opportunities for improvement. This has also involved the partnership with the Children’s Society and their Good Childhood project. The second part of the project was to focus on the development and sustainability of Multi-Agency Health & Well Being Drop-Ins across the county. This work has now diminished as schools are unable to support Drop- Ins with the model that was promoted through the Local Authority. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w48 Education Committee: Evidence

7. Procurement The School Business Managers group meet termly to identify joint procurement opportunities where economies of scale will provide beneﬁcial savings to member schools. The group has been identifying the role it can play and feeling its way, as it has evolved over the year.

8. Consultancy An income generating consultancy service was devised and promotional materials produced. This can provide advice and guidance on creating a governance model based on a charitable company model for interschool collaboration. The service was bought by three school clusters in Wiltshire.

9. Other (i) Student and family counselling service: This provides 39 hours of counselling time available to children from member schools, through three counsellors who work from the three secondary schools and the Hub. The service is also commissioned out to a primary school in the NE of the County at a commercial rate. (ii) Multi-Agency Health & Well Being Drop-Ins: Drop-in clinics operate at The Clarendon Academy and The John of Gaunt school. CSL has held regular review meetings with all those involved and collects usage data. (iii) Parenting support network: The network includes colleagues from the Children’s Centres. The following parenting programmes have been available in the past year: — Triple P primary and teen programmes—an evidenced based positive behaviour management. Also delivered to parents whose second language in English, run in partnership with EMAS. — Understanding and managing your child’s anger. — Understanding and managing your child’s challenging. — Behaviour. (iv) The Trowbridge Youth Parliament: This consists of 50 representatives from all CSL member schools. The group work together to progress local issues which matter to them, ﬁnding ways to address the challenges and so play a role in improving the local community. Projects in the past year have included an anti-social behaviour media campaign and a mosaics public art display in Trowbridge Park commemorating the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. (v) Arts project. An imaginative project involving all 21 schools and some community involvement has been planned, to be launched in June 2013 and tying in with two Trowbridge community arts festivals in October 2013 and March 2014. Called “Art Trowbridge” and producing pieces of visual art depicting imagery of life in Trowbridge, the intention is to create an indoor Arts Trail in public places around the area.

10. FundRaisingActivity It is a very difﬁcult time to be sourcing external funding. All of the major funding advice agencies caution about having realistic expectations, as levels and sources of funding decrease and the demand on them increases. It is regrettable that despite a number of what were considered as strong applications, we have had limited success with fund raising through applications to charitable trusts and foundations. For example, a funding bid to BBC Children in Need for a project involving emotion coaching for children and young people in partnership with Bath Spa University involved substantial personnel resource and regrettably was unsuccessful. A funding application to the Support Fund for State Schools with Service Children and another to the Ironmongers Charity, both for funding to provide targeted support, were also unsuccessful. As we move into our second year of operation we will review our fundraising needs and strategy to ensure that time and resource is being wisely devolved. Through the services of a consultant, each school was offered access to a day of time to help source appropriate funding streams and make applications. October 2013 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w49

Written evidence submitted by Myscience Introduction 1. Myscience manages the National Science Learning Centre on behalf of the Wellcome Trust, the network of regional Science Learning Centres on behalf of the DfE, and the National STEM Centre on behalf of the Gatsby Charitable Foundation as well as running a number of other programmes supporting STEM education. 2. Over the past two years Myscience has developed partnerships with 66 Teaching School Alliances, with an additional 20 Teaching Schools working closely with Myscience as a network to support and improve science education in the schools reached by these Teaching School Alliances, six Sponsored Academy chains, and one Learning Trust. The size of these school partnerships varies from a small group of four (an Academy chain) to a large of 34 schools (the Learning Trust). 3. In addition to the above groups of schools, Myscience has established networks of schools to support Triple Science, and pairings between schools experienced and effective in running Triple Science with schools struggling to introduce and/or implement Triple Science. 4. Over the last three years, Myscience has also supported 50 clusters of schools across England, involving 350 schools from all phases. The clusters have worked together to address areas which required improvement which the schools had in common, for example aspects of teaching and learning, practical work in science, assessment and/or leadership of science. 5. We are responding from experiences of working with primary and secondary schools through school partnerships and networks, input from an independent panel of science teachers and research studies we have commissioned.

Key Points 6. A small number of schools are experienced in leading professional development for other schools. Their effectiveness in sharing effective practice and contributing to school improvement is greatly increased when working with an external facilitator, such as Myscience. 7. School partnerships vary in their responsiveness to organisation to external organisations. External agencies can help schools bring people together to, exchange ideas and effective practice so ultimately raise the quality of science education. 8. We have found that tension exist between outstanding schools using their staff to support other schools using and leaving them in the classroom to continue to achieve outstanding results. 9. Not all teachers who step into the role of trainer/mentor of other teachers have developed the necessary “consultancy” skills. Professional development is needed to equip those who take on the role. The Teaching Schools have generic training, but not subject speciﬁc training which is needed to really make a difference in raising attainment. 10. Schools are generally skilled at developing and implementing a strategy for improvement. Our research shows that they are generally unskilled at evaluating the impact of the change on pupil learning.

The differing forms of school partnership and coordination, and whether they have particular advantages and disadvantages 11. Our work with clusters of schools and school networks indicates that teachers can work very effectively across schools to improve their practice, especially when they are working on a specific educational focus, such as improving the range of practical work, using the outdoors as a classroom, developing progression and assessment measures. By working the schools see the benefits of learning together as equals, with some input from specialist subject experts. The teachers become more reflective about their practice and support each other achieve better practice. 12. The additional funding which Teaching Schools have for Initial Teacher Training (ITT) enables them to attract partner schools to host and mentor trainee teachers. At a recent meeting of the 24 Teaching Schools Science Network working with Myscience, the schools reported difficulties attracting suitable Science and Mathematics candidates to the “salaried” School Direct scheme as the applicants are not “school ready” and do not have the necessary pedagogical skills or if they are “schools ready” they often do not have appropriate qualifications. 13. Where Teaching Schools are using expertise from across the Alliance to support a range of schools, the Alliance is likely to have a track record over a long period of time of doing this work, and have worked out a model for delivering the support which doesn’t impact on the schools own performance. A key role is the designation and deployment of Specialist Leaders in Education (SLEs). Normal practice involves a financial model for recompensing the releasing school that is balanced with an income from the school requesting help. The SLE will support the lead member of staff, and it is their responsibility to then support the classroom practitioner. The number of subject specific Specialist Leaders in Education is small compared to the number with expertise in generic areas to offer to schools for improvement. We have observed tensions in partner cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w50 Education Committee: Evidence

Teaching Schools, between releasing subject specific classroom teachers to the Specialist Leaders in Education role and the need to keep them the classroom to achieve outstanding results. Whereas those in a leadership role have a smaller teaching commitment and it is therefore easier for them to be released. 14. Our experiences indicate that the most Teaching Schools have focused on Initial Teacher Training in the first year of operation and are yet to really work together on subject specific professional development. 15. Multi-school Academies: From our limited experience of this group of schools we have noted the tension between the outward facing role and the lead academy need to retain its outstanding status. The most effective alliances manage this by having over-capacity in staff, to release staff to go into the schools requiring support. The Executive Heads often draw upon other members of the senior leadership team to help. The support is mainly in the area of leadership, rather than subject specific work. 16. In one school with this status with whom we have a close relationship, the sharing of the Executive Head did improve other schools, but it also lead to a decline in performance of the lead school. This raises a question how to maintain effective practice in schools while working across schools. 17. Where teachers have been sent to support other schools in subject specific areas, they were unskilled in this role and lacked the authority to suggest to colleagues in other schools how to improve practice. Training in “consultancy cycle and skills” is vital to provide them with the mentoring skills they need to do this work effectively. Being a teacher of young people does not necessarily prepare a person to become a trainer of peers. 18. Our experience is that some of the sponsors of academy chains have adopted the approach that they and their staff can address all the needs of the teachers in their chain. This can lead to a narrow approach, and can miss vital opportunities to use other expertise for specialist support. However the academy chains that do work with external partnerships to help improve practice have a very efficient means of ensuring all the schools in their chain engage in the provision, so very quick gains can be made, and the staff across schools are supportive of each other during the professional development programmes. 19. So far we have found that UTCs and Studio schools tend to work in isolation from other schools in their area. This means there are missed opportunities to share the specialist experience of working in a different way and to introduce young people to either practical or vocational learning respectively. 20. The schools within Learning Trusts tend to seek support from within the Trust, and so good practice can be disseminated swiftly and efficiently within the Trust. The school members will have contributed to the Trust funds and so it is in their interest to get as much back from the Trust as they can. Our experience is that Learning Trusts are open to working with external support and using a range of expertise to support improvement.

How highly performing schools could better be encouraged to cooperate with others 21. For the highly performing schools take on a supporting role, there is a significant tension between those in the school whose responsibility it is that the school continues to be outstanding and those who are responsible for the support given to other schools where they may wish to draw upon the most skilled teachers in the school. Often this tension is expressed by Heads of Department who do not wish to share their best staff with other schools and risk a drop in the quality of teaching leading to a drop in student achievement. 22. Schools that have faced and overcome this tension report that they: — Take a risk with over capacity in staffing in order to be able to be responsive to other schools; — Have developed a funding model to cover additional costs of over resourcing; — See significant gains from working in other schools in their own staff development and performance especially in those that have been involved in supporting other schools, which is then cascaded throughout their departments. 23. Where schools cluster around a highly performing school, the lead school usually establishes a Board to steer activity, so that all the schools in the partnership benefit from the planning, joint resourcing, professional development and other support.

Whether schools have sufficient incentives to form meaningful and lasting relationships with other schools 24. The schools that support other schools often consider it a moral responsibility for their school, rather than as a business development. It is clear that a business model needs to be developed to sustain their position as an authority and leader for other schools to turn to. We have seen examples where the business element has taken over from the moral responsibility, and the supported schools obviously get sufficient from the relationship to remain in the partnership. 25. As a weaker school develops and improves, it benefits from the strategic direction, advice and guidance, modelling and mentoring they receive from their more successful partners. 26. For the lead school, there is sufficient incentive in sharing effective practice, leading to improved teaching and learning experiences in other schools. Often these schools report that there is mutual benefit, and although “on paper” they are the stronger school they still learn from the schools they are supporting. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w51

27. In the clusters model we have supported, the schools see themselves as equal, though one school will take on the responsibility of driving the professional development activity forward taking on an administrative role. The common needs and sharing professional development helps to cement the relationship between the schools, and we have often found that the clusters continue to work together beyond the funded period.

28. In a recent survey of our teacher panel, over 50% reported that their school was part of a partnership or family of schools. The opportunity for networking and idea sharing was seen to be the biggest advantage of schools being in families or alliances. Other beneﬁts were seen in increasing the opportunities available to pupils, and improving the teachers’ science knowledge and improving teaching style.

29. A signiﬁcant minority of the teacher panel felt that being in a family or alliance offered increased access to CPD. Respondents from primary schools were particularly likely to think this, and at primary level more than half of respondents in a family/alliance said that they jointly purchased CPD.

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

30. The setting up of league tables created competition between schools, which hindered some schools from sharing effective practice and supporting each other. The new education landscape and increasing number of school partnerships is to reduce the negative aspects of the competition.

Whether converter academies’ requirements to support other schools, included in their funding agreements, are sufﬁcient and are effectively policed

31. We haven’t focused our work with this group of schools, but some Teaching Schools have reported concern that converter academies in their area are working in isolation.

Whether academies sponsored by another school receive sufﬁcient support from their sponsor

32. Our teachers’ panel, which includes senior leaders, states that time is a barrier to partnerships working effectively from the perspective of both the supplier school and the recipient school.

33. Most of support from the sponsor is focused on leadership and management, with little emphasis on subject speciﬁc support.

Whether school partnerships drive effective school improvement

34. When we questioned our teacher panel about the partnership activity, a signiﬁcant number were unaware of how the partnership worked, suggesting much of the activity is done at a senior level and the classroom teacher is oblivious to the impact of the partnership on school improvement.

35. Where teachers were involved at a department or individual level they felt they gained new ideas, improved subject knowledge and ideas for teaching.

36. Interestingly, most teachers whose schools are not in a partnership felt it would be beneﬁcial to join one.

37. Our research into partnership approach to school improvement would suggest that this is a new activity for schools and that most gains are made when the partnership includes an organisation with time to help evaluate needs and support the schools in their planning for interventions which will lead to the required improvements.

38. Schools are fairly comfortable about setting up a strategy for improvement and implementing these plans. Our research indicates that they are generally unskilled at evaluating how a change in teaching practice has had an impact on pupil learning.

Whether there are any additional upsides or downsides for highly performing schools supporting others through partnerships.

39. Where school budgets are tight more expensive science, engineering and technology resources can be bought and pooled by the partnership giving students access to a greater range of practical opportunities.

40. Shared learning means that tools that have proved effective can be used in common across partnerships eg resources to improve subject knowledge, professional development, instruments to support self-evaluation, approaches to leadership. October 2013 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w52 Education Committee: Evidence

Written evidence submitted by the Greater Manchester partnership Part 1: Collaboration in Greater Manchester The Greater Manchester Challenge, a government school improvement initiative which allocated funding to the 10 Greater Manchester Boroughs between April 2008 and March 2011 was instrumental in improving standards across all 10 Boroughs and also most importantly established a system for developing school to school support across local boundaries. In April 2011 in order to preserve the successes of the Challenge two organisations were set to take forward the legacy of the Challenge.

1.1 The Greater Manchester School Improvement Partnership Board The Board was set up in consultation with the Head of the Challenge, Professor Mel Ainscow, the Greater Manchester Chief Executives’ Group and leading headteachers to help to coordinate collaborative school improvement activities across the sub region. Its high level objectives are to: — provide mutual, collective accountability and challenge to the overall GM school improvement system; — ensure interface and coordination between LAs, the GM “By Schools for Schools” body and teaching schools; and — identify and discuss areas of common/shared challenges, approaches and practices, including opportunities for closer collaborative working or moves towards shared services. Its specific tasks are to: — enhance and influence the development of efficient and effective school improvement solutions; — build leadership capacity in schools across GM and facilitate the development of school to school support and partnership; — facilitate the sharing of good practice; — monitor the progress of collaborative actions taken; — identify and pursue opportunities for additional funding and coordinate activity across GM; and — develop and oversee an effective communication system which ensures that information is disseminated to all heads and LA officers.(including the organisation of termly School Improvement Conferences). The membership is as follows: — Two Directors of Children’s Services (including Chair). — Three teaching school representatives. — Three By Schools for Schools representatives. — Three Heads of School Improvement/Education lead officer representatives. — One National College of School Leadership representative. — One Higher Education representative Former Leader of the greater Manchester Challenge). — Board secretary. Members of the Board are charged with disseminating papers and information from the Board to the groups they represent.

1.2 By schools for schools This organisation was set up by group of Leading GM Headteachers, supported by DfE, GM Challenge Leaders and GM Chief Execs Group. It originated prior to setting up of teaching schools, but teaching schools are part of membership and BSfS activities complement the development of teaching schools. It is now formally established as a company limited by guarantee. Current Directors are National Leaders of Education and Retired Local Authority Director of Education and Early Years. The Governance group challenges and supports the work of BSfS Its membership considers of headteacher representatives from all 10 GM Local Authorities, Chair of LA School Improvement Ofﬁcer group, National College Associate and NLG representation: Philosophy: Underpinned by strong moral purpose which recognises that all schools have a responsibility to work together, share expertise and support each other (and particularly the most vulnerable) in order to build capacity in the system and ensure the best possible outcomes for all children across GM. Purpose: BSfS was set up as a brokerage and commissioning organisation to develop of a coherent programme of school to school support and provide a single point of contact for LAs & schools. It cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w53

is also responsible for the operational management of GM N/LLE/NLGs on behalf of NCTP and acts as a conduit for NCL & DfE.it is also acts as a stabilizer of market forces and a lobby group and consultation body. BSfS provides access to all Greater Manchester National, Local, Specialist Leaders of Education, National Support Schools and National Leaders of Governance. The programmes offered include: — Whole school/focussed diagnostics. — Teaching and learning programmes. — Whole school and subject or phase speciﬁc leadership and management support including coaching and mentoring, support with action planning, management of staff, monitoring and evaluation etc. — Executive Headteacher support package. — Staff development and training packages for groups and individuals. — Bespoke packages tailored to individual school needs.

1.3 Development of school to school support in the 10 boroughs All GM boroughs are developing school to school support process and partnerships within the borough and information about these is shared at the termly Conferences and through the partnership Board minutes.

1.4 An example of effective school to school support from LA Board Member: Wigan Background Wigan Council’s strategy for school improvement supports strong collaboration and partnerships to develop best practice between schools, whilst at the same time ensuring that the Local Authority delivers its statutory school improvement functions. Schools in Wigan work within one of eight consortia to identify strengths and areas for development in each of their schools. Each consortia is led by a serving Headteacher or a team of serving Headteachers, all of whom lead high performing schools. The lead Headteachers meet regularly with Local Authority ofﬁcers as members of the School Improvement Board. The leaders work collaboratively with the schools in their consortia to develop plans and commission services that address areas for development within the consortia. They utilise the commissioning budget provided by the LA to support improvement and develop good practice. The LA and the consortia produce an agreed process of identifying schools who are vulnerable in terms of underperformance, as well as those who have good practice. This process (termed “categorisation”) in the Wigan School Improvement Strategy is used by the consortium to determine priorities for support and to share good practice. The Local Authority ensures that all schools who receive support are monitored so that the impact of the strategy on individual school improvement is evaluated and the local intelligence on schools is maintained centrally. A LA Intervention protocol forms part of the framework and can be triggered by Lead Headteachers where disengagement occurs or support is not embedded or facilitating rapid improvement. LA Ofﬁcers are then in a position to undertake formal powers of intervention if required.

Advantages of the Model — It is a systems led strategy which means that the schools are able to learn from the best leadership practice in order to drive improvement throughout the whole LA. School Governors are also seen as key players in the strategy and also work in consortia to share effective practice in governance. Governors are given information on the categorisation of their school by the school improvement boards. — Headteachers of high performing schools are identiﬁed as school improvement leads and are members of the school improvement boards. They are also funded for the time they give to school to school support. This means that they are fully engaged and play a major part in developing and driving the strategy forwards. A number of leads are also engaged as Additional Inspectors by OfSTED and are also acting as NLEs/LLEs. The strategy enables the knowledge that they have gained whilst undertaking these roles to be shared across schools. — The system is centrally co-ordinated by the LA and all schools are engaged in the strategy from the outset, whatever their status, whether they be converter academies, maintained schools or Voluntary Aided schools. — School leaders and teachers are able to gain support from practitioners and experts within schools and they can see how effective strategies work in day to day practice. — The model encourages joint practice development across a number of schools and learning from this practice can then be shared throughout the LA. — Support can be tailored to meet the needs of individual schools, thus avoiding a less effective and potentially more costly, “one size ﬁts all” approach. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w54 Education Committee: Evidence

— The model encourages rich learning conversations between school leaders. New Headteachers to the borough ﬁnd being part of a strong consortia of schools an invaluable source of support. — School leaders who are engaged in supporting other schools say that they gain a lot from undertaking this work, not only in terms of the skills they personally develop whilst working with other leaders, but also in terms of the ideas they bring back to their own schools. — Relationships between the LA and schools are strengthened by the opportunities for closer partnership working. — Potential conﬂicts of interest between schools, particularly around competition for school places, can be managed sensitively, strategically and locally by the LA, so that these do not become barriers to effective collaboration. Where schools require support, but feel that this is not available by schools within the consortia, the LA is able to broker support from schools in other Local Authorities using the wider network of LA partnerships.

Other Aspects of the Strategy — Systems and processes are kept purposely simple and clear. A data sharing agreement and protocol has been developed with schools. The LA provides the infrastructure, the performance data and administrative support, which means that school leaders, as well as other staff in schools, are able to get on with the business of providing support. — There are clear processes to support school improvement leads should they feel that a school is not engaging positively or if the support is not having the intended impact. — Nationally driven strategies are developed locally to ﬁt into the overarching LA strategy for school improvement. An example of this is the close working with the two teaching schools to commission SLE support for schools.

Part 2: Response to Specific SelectCommittee Questions 1. Advantages and disadvantages of partnership working The Partnership attempts to provide a coherent approach to information sharing in an incoherent and rapidly changing environment. BSfS provides a one stop shop for schools needing support who may otherwise fall through the gap if and until other collaboratives mature and develop a coherent service across GM. A major advantage of school to school support is that, where it is successful, all parties benefit both the giver and the receiver. All learn from the experience both personally, professionally and to the benefit of both schools. Concerns relate to the dependence on the enthusiasm and commitment of individuals to take things forward and the reducing amount of funding in the system to cover the real costs of on-going and systematic school to school support. Where successful schools work together they can develop a barter system but vulnerable schools are not in this position and the supporting school needs funding in order to provide an adequate level of support. Another concern relates to the lack of recognition in some schools of the importance of investing financially in CPD and staff development and training.

2. How highly performing schools could better be encouraged to cooperate with others The proposal to include school to school support as one of the Ofsted criteria for receiving an outstanding judgement has signiﬁcant merit and would act as an incentive to develop a more systematic approach to school to school support. Otherwise, though most schools have a strong moral purpose and will provide support, some will continue to pay lip service to it.

3. Whether schools have sufﬁcient incentives to form meaningful and lasting relationships with other schools Schools are currently driven by a strong moral purpose and the recognition of the beneﬁts their staff derive from providing support but incentives such as the Ofsted judgement and access to funding would be more likely to ensure that a systematic programme of school to school support is developed and maintained.

4. If and how the potential tension between school partnership and cooperation, and school choice and competition can be resolved Schools have always grappled with this, though the development of the school to school support and the competitive market has intensiﬁed the focus. Facilitating school to school support across boundaries goes some way of moderating this. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w55

5. Whether school partnerships drive effective school improvement The success of partnerships depends on setting clear parameters, baselines and targets at the start of the process and ensuring regular reviews and adjustments. The receiving school must commit fully to the support rather than feeling that it is imposed and the support also needs to be a good match in terms of context, expertise, philosophy and personalities. Adequate funding is also a key factor in the success or otherwise of the project.

Part 3: Teaching School Board Member Response to Speciﬁc Questions: Altrincham Grammar School from Girls 1. Advantages and disadvantages of partnership working General collaboration, say under a Teaching School alliance, is ﬁne if all support the ethos and values but it is very heavily reliant on co-operation. However, not all partners are “equally” engaged, leaving a burden on the more willing partners. Such partnerships should not be solely reliant on schools but look to include a broader range of partners such as universities, colleges, charities, to enhance the offering. Under a more formal arrangement such as a trust of sponsored academies, there is the capability to make things happen in a more strategic and consistent way. There is more ownership by all. Directors of the Trust ensure progress and improvement.

2. How highly performing schools could better be encouraged to cooperate with others Highly performing schools, or any schools, should not be touting for business but should be more organised through a proper network to ensure quality training and support to the system as a whole. An example could be that certain kinds of training could be shared across a region of Teaching Schools. An example could be NW divided into smaller regions where applicants travel to their assigned TS for training and the TS alliance placements. The applicants could have a choice of region but not which TS or organisation they go to. This should also be the case for further professional training and engagement leading up to and post Fellowship for Principals. The DfE, or equivalent, should approach individual schools to encourage collaboration. There are many high-performing schools who continue to work independently of any other school.

3. Whether schools have sufﬁcient incentives to form meaningful and lasting relationships with other schools Only formal arrangements can be managed long term; others depend on the vagaries of those who have agreed to be in a collaboration or loose alliance. Otherwise a clearly articulated memorandum of understanding needs to be in place with regular reviews.

4. If and how the potential tension between school partnership and cooperation, and school choice and competition can be resolved Have schools be part of a Trust that are far away from each other not to be in direct competition for numbers. There are too many schools in geographical proximity designated as Teaching Schools. Pupils in areas with no Teaching School should not be disadvantaged; you could match a high-performing school with schools outside their geographic area.

5. Whether converter academies’ requirements to support other schools, included in their funding agreements, are sufﬁcient and are effectively policed If the right systems are in place then they should be properly policed. There needs to be a health check on the systems as Trusts form. Cannot say about looser arrangements.

6. Whether academies sponsored by another school receive sufﬁcient support from their sponsor The DfE needs to broker this better and then agree a bespoke ﬁnancial package with the sponsor. Some need leads but others may need a bigger starter package.

7. Whether school partnerships drive effective school improvement Yes, where they have a strong leader, committed partners and a clear vision decided collaboratively matched to the needs of pupils in that area. Robust QA must be in place with strong action planning, self-evaluation and risk management. Formal arrangements long term are preferable as inconsistencies will occur and will make the system less effective or even fail where there was success. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w56 Education Committee: Evidence

8. Whether there are any additional upsides or downsides for highly performing schools supporting others through partnerships Positive: retention of high performing staff who rare offered additional responsibilities and challenges through supporting other schools; career enhancement to broaden experience beyond their own high-performing school-important in the progression to SLT/Leadership. Positive: requires careful management (succession planning) to ensure best staff are not taken away from the classroom. DfE to have a national plan: how many sponsors and what size, and how they are to be dispersed. We need proper brokerage based on local intelligence. It is too hit and miss at the moment and much time, money and energy is wasted by schools which can put them off sponsoring schools. Other partnerships can be too ephemeral. October 2013

Written evidence submitted by NASUWT Executive Summary — The status of education as a public good and a human right means that policy and practice should not only seek to secure benefits for individual pupils and learners but should also recognise the importance of education to the economic, cultural, civic and democratic wellbeing of wider society. — Notions of education as a commodity to be consumed by individuals and provided for in a competitive and marketised context are therefore wholly inconsistent with the principles upon which the organisation of the public education system should be based. — However, following reforms initiated by the 1979–97 Conservative Government, the use of competition and quasi-markets became established to an increasing extent in the education system in England, although the last Government had begun to place greater emphasis on the importance of collaboration. — Since taking office, the Coalition Government has intensified significantly the marketisation of the education system, reflected particularly clearly in the terms on which it has taken forward rapid expansion of its academies and free schools programmes. — These programmes have created profound risks to the ability of the education system to benefit from effective inter-school and intersectoral collaboration in areas including provision for pupils with special educational needs, school admissions, pupil exclusions and strategies for school improvement. — Assertions by the Coalition Government that it is seeking to promote collaboration through the creation of academy chains, making inter-school collaboration a requirement of academy and free school funding agreements and its teaching schools programme are difficult to justify on the basis of evidence. — An alternative strategy for promoting collaboration must be developed, based on a clear recognition of education as a public good and a universal human right and in which partnership and cooperation at school, local and national levels are firmly established as guiding principles of policy.

Introduction 1. The NASUWT welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the House of Commons Education Select Committee Inquiry into School Partnerships and Cooperation. 2. The Union’s evidence addresses the speciﬁc issues identiﬁed by the Committee in its call for evidence by: — locating considerations in relation to partnerships and cooperation in the education system in the context of the status of education as a public good and a human right; — examining the historic implications of public policy in England for inter-school cooperation and for collaboration between schools and other public services for children and young people; — identifying the impediments to cooperation resulting from key elements of Coalition Government policy; and — setting out the basis upon which alternative approaches to the promotion of collaboration and partnership within the education system might be developed.

Collaboration and theStatus ofEducation asa Public Good anda Universal Human Right 3. The NASUWT’s understanding of the importance of collaboration and partnership within the education system derives from its recognition of education as a public good and a universal human right. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w57

4. The Union is clear that the status of education as a public good means that policy and practice should not only seek to secure benefits for individual pupils and learners but should also recognise the importance of education to the economic, cultural, civic and democratic wellbeing of wider society. 5. These inherent characteristics of education have profound implications for the principles upon which education systems are organised. In particular, they confirm that notions of education as a commodity to be consumed by individuals and provided for in a competitive and marketised context are wholly inconsistent with an understanding of education as a public good and a human right. 6. Consideration of the implications of policy programmes based on the promotion of competition between schools serves to highlight the inappropriateness of marketised approaches to the organisation of the education system. In market theory, competition between providers is regarded as central to securing the efficient production and distribution of commodities and is dependent, in part, on producers being able to differentiate their products sufficiently from those of other market participants in order to maximise their market share and undermine the position of other producers operating in the same market space.16 7. In its report to its 2013 Annual Conference, Maintaining World Class Schools, the NASUWT described the profoundly negative consequences of attempts to use market mechanisms, including competition between providers, as a guiding principle for the organisation of provision in the education system.17 8. In particular, the NASUWT’s report draws attention to the fact that there is no credible international evidence that the development of education systems on the basis of conceptualising pupils and parents as consumers of education in a marketised context, with the promotion of competition between providers as an incentive to raise standards of provision, generates improved educational outcomes.18 Instead, the use of such mechanisms has been associated with high rates of variation in levels of pupil performance19 and increased social and economic segregation.20 9. It is also evident that the use of competitive quasi-markets in the provision of education works to undermine collaboration between educational institutions, thereby exacerbating barriers to the sharing of professional experience and expertise across the education system.21 The pressures within schools to secure market advantage against competitor institutions also creates perverse incentives for schools to focus on the narrow range of pupil performance indicators used to differentiate between providers in the market rather than on ensuring that educational offers are tailored to the needs of individual children and to achievement of the public aims of the education system.22 10. In such a context, it is also evident that collaboration between schools and providers of wider services for children and young people to promote and improve children’s wider wellbeing is also likely to be emphasised insufficiently where inter-school competition is a prevent characteristic of the education system. 11. The impediments to institutional collaboration generated by marketised approaches to the operation of the education system also have important implications for its productive and allocative efficiency by undermining the ability of schools to generate economies of scale through effective partnership working and impeding the distribution of finite resources across the school system on a strategic basis.23 12. It is therefore clear that models of educational provision based on collaboration work to create circumstances within which significant educational organisational and economic benefits can be secured. This has been recognised by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and was an unequivocal message of the recent independent investigation of the Department for Education’s (DfE’s) academies programme undertaken by the Academies Commission.24

The Developing Role ofCompetition andQuasi-markets in the School System in England 13. It is important to recognise that, notwithstanding the compelling evidence of the importance of institutional collaboration in securing positive outcomes for individuals and for wider society, policy 16 Ofﬁce of Fair Trading (OFT) (2010). Choice and Competition in Public Services: A report prepared for the OFT by Frontier Economics. 17 NASUWT (2013). Maintaining World Class Schools. NASUWT; Birmingham. 18 ibid. 19 Hickman, R (2011). “Education and Fairness” in Lawson, N and Spours, K (eds.). Education for the Good Society: The Values and Principles of a New Comprehensive Vision. (http://clients.squareeye.net/uploads/compass/documents/COM0972_Education_ for_Good_Society_WEB.pdf), retrieved on 07/05/13. 20 NASUWT (2013). op. cit. 21 The Academies Commission (2013). Unleashing Greatness: Getting the best from and academised system. (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6933673/130109%20-%20Academies%20Commission/Academies_commission_ report%20FINAL%20web%20version.pdf), retrieved on 06/05/13. 22 West, A and Pennell, H (2000). “Publishing school examination results in England: incentives and consequences”. Educational Studies 26 (4): 423–436. 23 Atkinson, M; Springate, J; Johnson, F and Hulsey, K (2007). Inter-school collaboration: a literature review. NFER; Slough. Huxham, C. and Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage. Routledge; Oxford. 24 Exley, S (2013). “Mind the gap between the best and the worst: it’s widening”. Times Educational Supplement (8 February). (http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6318807), retrieved on 06/05/13; The Academies Commission (2013), op. cit. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w58 Education Committee: Evidence

development in England has long sought to embed quasi-markets and competition between schools as key features of the state education system. 14. This approach was initiated by the 1979–97 Conservative Government and was based to a significant extent on the introduction of performance league tables and punitive individual school inspection, a fundamental purpose of both policies was to provide “market” information to parents in order to allow them to exercise consumer choice in relation to the schools attended by their children.25 15. These reforms were supported by the granting of significant degrees of financial autonomy and control over key personnel-related functions to individual schools, reflecting the view of proponents of marketisation in the education system that such autonomy is a necessary condition of the efficient operation of quasi-markets as, in theory, it permits schools to respond more effectively to prevailing market conditions.26 The necessary corollary of the re-location of financial authority and control of resources at school level was a weakening of the strategic role of local authorities in supporting and maintaining effective collaborative arrangements between schools.27 16. While the Labour Government of 1997–2010 retained many of the features of a quasi-marketised education system, it is important to note that the value of collaboration was recognised to an increasing extent in the development of policy during this period.28 This revised approach was reflected in, for example, the introduction of school behaviour and attendance partnerships, 14–19 curriculum and qualification consortia and the co-ordination of admissions arrangements through Admissions Forums. In relation to school accountability, the previous administration’s School Report Card proposal, subsequently discarded by the Coalition Government, sought to examine ways in which systems of accountability might be recast to emphasise more effectively the importance of collaboration between schools.29 17. More broadly, the critical importance of cooperation and partnership working between schools and other agencies and organisations within the wider children’s services sector was recognised in the development of statutory local authority-led Children and Young People’s Trusts. These bodies were established not only to enhance the educational opportunities available to children and young people but also to promote their wider wellbeing through the adoption of strategic local approaches to inter-agency collaboration. 18. However, since taking office, the Coalition Government has removed many of the remaining key drivers of cooperation within the education system, through its abolition of previous requirements on schools to collaborate with others and by undermining local-level structures through which effective inter-school partnership arrangements, as well as those between schools and other children and young people-focused public services, could be secured in practice. 19. The undermining of support for effective collaboration within the education and wider children and young people’s services sectors has been driven by a clear commitment on the part of Coalition Government Ministers to the use of competition and quasi-market structures as the principal drivers of system improvement, despite an asserted recognition by the DfE of the value of inter-school and intersectoral collaboration.30 20. The implications of current policy approaches for collaboration and school partnerships are examined in further detail below.

IncreasingRisks toCollaboration through Intensified Marketisation 21. The intensification of marketisation within the education system since the Coalition Government came to office has been evident in significant demand-side reforms, including an intensification of the school accountability regime and the development of vouchers or “personal budgets” in the context of revised funding arrangement for pupils with special educational needs (SEN). 22. In respect of supply-side policy, the Coalition Government has initiated a significant expansion in the number of schools with academy status and has also allowed for the establishment of free schools. A deliberate aim of both of these policy agendas has been to locate a substantial and increasing proportion of the state- funded schools sector beyond the local authority structures and national frameworks through which inter-school and intersectoral collaboration had been secured previously. These schools have also been encouraged by Ministers to make full use of their enhanced institutional autonomy over matters including the pay and conditions of staff, the curriculum, the allocation of resources and policies on pupil admissions, emphasising further the importance attached to the use of quasi-markets by Ministers. 23. However, in light of the nature of education as a public good, it is unsurprising that the development of academies and free schools as essential components of a competitive quasi-market for education has been associated with the identification of increased risks to sustaining and enhancing collaboration within the education system. 25 Reed, J and Hallgarten, J (2003). Time to say goodbye? The future of school performance tables. IPPR; London. 26 Glennester, H (1991). “Quasi-markets for Education?”. The Economic Journal. Vol. 101 No. 408 pp.1268–1276. 27 Institute for Government (2012). The development of quasi-markets in secondary education. Institute for Government; London. 28 ibid. 29 Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF)/Ofsted (2008). A School Report Card: consultation document. DCSF; Nottingham. 30 Institute for Government (2012). op. cit.; The Academies Commission (2013). op. cit. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w59

24. For example, the Academies Commission has highlighted the potentially damaging implications of a more pronounced culture of competition between schools, unmediated by local level strategic oversight, for effective and equitable arrangements in relation to school improvement, the sharing between schools of resources and professional expertise, admissions and meeting the needs of pupils with SEN.31 In relation to the particularly sensitive area of the management of pupil exclusions, the Ofﬁce of the Children’s Commissioner has emphasised the dangers of an increasingly autonomised and competitive education system to ensuring that schools and other relevant agencies work together to meet the needs of all excluded pupils and those at risk of exclusion, regardless of the school they happen to attend.32

25. Notwithstanding the clear relationship between the academisation and free schools agendas and the increased focus on the use of competition and quasi-markets in the education system, it has been suggested by Ministers33 and commentators sympathetic to the Coalition Government that the increasing extent to which academies and free schools are organised into multi-institutional federations or chains is creating new opportunities for inter-school collaboration.34

26. However, it should be noted that while it may be the case that some forms of collaboration may emerge between academies within such chains, recent evidence appears to suggest that inter-school collaboration in this context takes place to a disproportionate extent within chain boundaries rather than with other local academies or with schools that are maintained by local authorities, given these institutions’ status as “competitor” organisations.35 It is also important to recognise that collaboration within academy chains is not subject to effective common expectations comparable to those associated with the behaviour and qualiﬁcations- related partnership arrangements established by the previous Government. Inter-school collaboration within academy chains is therefore likely to develop on a basis marked by high degrees of variation in nature, quality and extent.

27. The Coalition Government has also sought to assert that the academies and free schools programmes secure inter-school collaboration through requirements in academy and free school funding agreements to work in partnership with other schools.36 However, it is clear that the contractual rather than statutory basis of funding agreements creates signiﬁcant barriers to securing compliance with their provisions in practice as a result of the inability of parties other than the schools concerned and the DfE to seek effective implementation of terms set out in these agreements.

28. The lack of any effective enforcement mechanism in relation to inter-school collaboration provisions in funding agreements was identiﬁed by the Academies Commission as a critical barrier to ensuring that academies and free schools engage effectively in partnership working.37

29. The DfE has further highlighted its teaching school programme as an important means by which schools are supported to work in partnership and thereby secure system-wide beneﬁts in respect of initial teacher training (ITT), the professional development of teachers, support staff and school leaders, school improvement and headteacher succession planning.38

30. However, the Committee will note that the teaching school programme is based on marketised relationships between participating settings in which services are made available on a commercial basis by teaching schools to other institutions. As a result, incentives have been created for schools involved in such arrangements to focus on commercial objectives and priorities rather than on ensuring that collaboration works to maintain and enhance the quality and range of educational opportunities made available to pupils. The conceptualisation of inter-school relationships inherent in the teaching school programme is therefore entirely inconsistent with the collaborative principle associated with recognition of education as a public good.

Towardsa New Model ofCollaboration in the State Education System

31. It is apparent from the considerations highlighted in this evidence that an education system organised on marketised principles, in which competition between providers is recognised as a central organising principle, will encounter significant difficulties in securing the benefits for individual pupils and for wider society that inter-school and intersectoral collaboration are able to generate. 31 The Academies Commission (2013). op. cit. 32 Office of the Children’s Commissioner (2013). Always Someone Else’s Problem: Office of the Children’s Commissioner’s report on illegal exclusions. (http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/force_download.php?fp=%2Fclient_ assets%2Fcp%2Fpublication%2F662%2FFINAL_Always_Someone_Elses_Problem.pdf.), retrieved on 06/05/13. 33 House of Commons Education Committee (2012). The Responsibilities of the Secretary of State. Uncorrected oral evidence— 24 April. (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmeduc/uc1786-ii/uc178601.htm), retrieved 06/05/13. 34 O’Shaughnessy, J (2012). Competition Meets Collaboration: Helping school chains to address England’s long tail of educational failure. Policy Exchange; London. 35 Hill, R; Dunford, J; Parish, N; Rea, S and Sandals, L (2012). The growth of academy chains: implications for leaders and leadership. National College for School Leadership; Nottingham. 36 House of Commons Library (2012). Academies: Standard Note SN/SP 6484. (http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/ SN06484.pdf), retrieved on 06/05/13. 37 The Academies Commission (2013) op. cit. 38 National College for School Leadership (2012). System leadership prospectus. (http://www.education.gov.uk/nationalcollege/ docinfo?id=176721&filename=system-leadership-prospectus.pdf), retrieved on 07/05/13. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w60 Education Committee: Evidence

32. The contradictions between approaches to the organisation of the education system based on competition between providers and those established on genuinely collaborative principles are addressed in the NASUWT’s Maintaining World Class Schools report. In acknowledging the barriers to inter-school and intersectoral collaboration that the commodification of education creates, the NASUWT restates its call for all those with a stake in the success of the education system in England to work towards the development of an alternative strategy for reform based on a clear recognition of education as a public good and a universal human right and in which partnership and co-operation at school, local and national levels are established as guiding principles of policy.39 33. In particular, steps will need to be taken by Government to ensure that all schools are required to take forward their duty to co-operate in the public interest and on behalf of all children and young people by ensuring that institutional collaboration across publicly funded schools is non-negotiable and is undertaken without restriction or qualification. This will require a careful and thorough examination of the implications for collaboration of the highly delegated models of school funding in place currently. 34. Maintaining World Class Schools further emphasises that a recasting of the operation of the education system to reflect more effectively the status of education as a public good requires a fundamental revision of the aims and purposes of the school accountability framework. Through objective and appropriately contextualised use of international evidence, steps should be taken to develop an approach in England that no longer casts accountability narrowly as an aid to consumers in a quasi-market for education but that instead ensures that schools and others responsible for the education system can be held to effective account for their activities in ways that promote rather than militate against collaboration and cooperation. 35. This consideration draws attention to reforms of the national pay and conditions framework being taken forward currently by the Coalition Government. To date, the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD) has worked to support inter-school collaboration through its establishment of a common framework of pay and conditions for teachers, within which schools could, if necessary, exercise sufficient flexibility in respect of their pay and conditions arrangements to meet clearly identifiable school-specific needs and objectives. As a result, a system developed within which incentives for schools to compete with others to attract staff on the basis of pay were largely absent, thereby contributing to the creation of a supportive context for inter-school collaboration. 36. The changes to the STPCD being taken forward by the Coalition Government will, if implemented, critically weaken the common basis for the pay and conditions of teachers across the state education system through removal of the key provisions on which this commonality was based and by explicitly encouraging schools to compete with others on the basis of their pay arrangements. It should also be noted that the crude approaches to establishing relationships between the performance of teachers and their pay being promoted by the Coalition Government will also serve to undermine essential professional collaboration between teachers within schools. 37. The NASUWT is therefore clear that an education system in which positive collaboration and cooperation between depends to a significant extent on the maintenance of meaningful and robust national pay and conditions framework. 38. It is evident that work to support inter-school and intersectoral collaboration will need to be accompanied by the establishment of a wider supportive infrastructure. While local councils can and should have a vital role in facilitating co-operation and partnership, the NASUWT does not believe that establishing effective structures to promote and sustain collaboration are necessarily predicated on the development of approaches shaped by the rubric of traditional corporate municipalities or on a rejection of diversity of provision within the education system.40 39. Instead, Maintaining World Class Schools, calls for a “co-operative revolution” in the state education system, in which all stakeholders would be supported to work in collaborative partnerships to secure quality education for all children and young people. 40. In relation to the education system in England, the work of the Schools Co-operative Society (SCS) in developing effective partnership arrangements between schools, local authorities and other key stakeholders in a context of increasing diversity of provision represents a progressive and dynamic model of cooperative working. In contrast to the serious limitations of the prevalent academy chain model described above, the frameworks of collaboration established by SCS seek to develop partnerships between all schools and other agencies that share its principles of mutualism and its commitment to state education as a public good. 41. The NASUWT, with which the SCS signed an historic agreement in 2012, would welcome the opportunity to set out in more detail in oral evidence to the Committee the opportunities for securing greater inter-school and inter-agency collaboration represented by the establishment of cooperative models of school organisation that reflect those developed by the SCS. October 2013

39 NASUWT (2012) op. cit. 40 ibid. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w61

Written evidence submitted by the National Association of School Partnerships

Introduction to NASP The National Association of School Partnerships is a new organisation created to support the increasing number of school partnerships across the UK. The Association provides advice, support, networking, training, research and other products and services to partnerships of Schools in England, Scotland and Wales. Any school partnership, no matter how formative can join.

In the spirit of the Government’s changes, moving away from a centralised approach towards a more ﬂexible and even market driven system of school improvement, the creation of NASP is an intelligent and demand led response. Initiated by the long-established Southend Education Trust which has responded to many calls for support to formative school partnerships over the last two years, NASP is not an organisation driven by bureaucratic systems and standard approaches.

NASP’s main purpose is to encourage collaboration across the school system, supporting school partnerships of many different kinds to get the best out of the opportunities that the current system offers. Schools may be in the driving seat more than ever with a decentralised system (locally and nationally) offering them opportunities to find the support and the partnerships that are most appropriate to their specific contexts. However, NASP believes, based upon years of experience, that such a system will benefit significantly from a mutually beneficial support mechanism; one that offers the opportunities for all of those involved to put in as much as they gain—something that is very much in keeping with the principles of the best performing school partnerships.

NASP also believes that wider social beneﬁts can be secured through strong and well functioning school partnerships. Effective school partnerships should be inward-looking in the sense that they make the most out of the qualities that exist within the partnerships. They should also be outward-looking and seek partnerships and support from other educational organisations and charities, or from other sectors including universities, businesses and cultural institutions. It is important for them to maintain good relationships with Local Authorities who retain a number of statutory duties relating to education. NASP can help with this, supporting school partnerships to understand the beneﬁts of working with other organisations, providing the introductions, links and contacts to facilitate productive new relationships.

NASP is the perfect model to meet today’s challenges—a social venture that encourages innovation and collaboration, providing the support and knowledge which will help schools to enable young people to achieve their potential. Schools can do so much more even with diminishing ﬁnancial resources: they just need to work in partnership like never before to achieve it.

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

As the questions recognises, there are many different forms of school partnership, and this reﬂects the relative freedom that individual schools have to decide what is appropriate for them. It should also be recognised that an individual school decision to continue a close working relationship with a Local Authority is also a form of partnership that is now the result of a choice made against other options.

It is early days for many school partnerships, particularly teaching school alliances which is the closest to a Government sponsored system with some (fairly limited) funding available for partnership costs and opportunities for accessing Government research funding and schemes such as Schools Direct for initial teacher training.

NASP’s own experience, and this also a key point regarding the depth of partnerships as set out clearly by David Hargreaves for (A self-improving school system: towards maturity NCSL 2012), is that size and commitment matter as much as the nature of the partnership structure. Generally, particularly at the initial stage, smaller partnerships have a greater chance of success as there will in most cases be a good reason for two or more school to be collaborating (similar demographics and/or a shared location). These smaller partnership offer the opportunity for all schools taking part to be fully active in terms of cooperation (reciprocal), rather than one stronger school (for example an outstanding school which leads a teaching school alliance) dominating through a “done-to” system. There is however limited evidence at this stage of how different partnerships perform in terms of pupil attainment. At this stage it is as much about adopting a principle that strong school collaborations must be at the heart of a well functioning self-improving system, and that this will in turn lead to higher levels of pupils attainment.

Not all school partnerships are the same of course, and the smaller is better principle may not extend to academy chains where there is limited evidence that larger chains, with an established executive leadership (over and above headteachers), had managed to outperform smaller academy chains and individual schools (NCSL The Growth of Academy Chains: Implications for Leaders and Leadership 2012). However, academy chains are not necessarily based upon a reciprocal partnership with schools in a chain becoming integrated into an established ethos and shared principles and it will be interesting to see whether this trend can be maintained. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w62 Education Committee: Evidence

How highly performing schools could be better encouraged to cooperate with others There are a number of ways that this can be encouraged and NASP recognises that it is important for highly performing schools to be engaged in well functioning school partnerships. Not simply so that other schools can gain from their experience, but also so that the highly performing schools can continue to improve through learning from others and challenging their staff (mentoring staff at other schools for example and learning from this experience). Highly performing schools can apply to establish a teaching school alliance with the incentives this provides for highly performing schools to lead a collaborative and self-improving system. NASP’s experience of this to date suggests that there are many incentives for other schools in an area where a new alliance is established to join. Incentives include access to Initial Teacher Training Schemes opportunities for research funding, and access to SLE and NLE functions. However the rapid expansion can lead to alliances of over 50 schools before there is any collective sense of strategic direction and purpose. This can then lead to an understandable focus on organisation, governance and other forms of bureaucracy rather than on school to school collaboration, and this stage can go on for some time. By the time the bureaucracy is resolved might it be the case that the schools in the alliance are not natural partners in a reciprocal partnership, and that an alternative bureaucracy to a Local Authority has in fact been established? Outside of alliances and other forms of school partnership, there is a need for highly performing schools to understand what they potentially have to gain from supporting/collaborating with other schools. NASP recognises that all schools, including those who are highly performing, must be able to justify decisions (to Governing bodies for example) on the basis of good research and evidence. As Hargreaves states, leaders involved with school partners need a “theory of the case”: “Headteachers have always had a narrative about what they do with their schools. They need it as a sales pitch to attract parental choice, as a means of accountability, and as a way of celebrating the school’s achievements. Hitherto such a narrative has been largely conﬁned to the story of the individual school, not schools in partnership. A self-improving system based on inter-school partnership requires an extended narrative to explain and justify the partnership.” (David Hargreaves A self-improving school system: towards maturity NCSL 2012). The “theory of the case” mentioned will emerge as more partnerships of many kinds form and mature. Support of the kind that NASP provides will ensure that more school and system leaders get the right information and support they need to make successful starts with their partnership, or to develop and scale-up appropriately. This also requires that school leaders continue to develop their skills in forming and sustaining partnerships, something that the Government should encourage and provide support for (NASP might be an appropriate vehicle to provide/promote such support).

Whether schools have sufficient incentives to form meaningful and lasting relationships with other schools There are real incentives for schools to form partnerships at the present time. However, many of these are top-down levers of power or persuasion and do not necessarily reflect a natural tendency in schools throughout the UK to form alliances. Some of the drivers for this are: — Teaching School Alliances—Being in an alliance, a school can access ITT schemes, Schools Direct, SLEs, research funding available to alliances but not individual schools as well as a potentially mutually supportive network of schools in a local area (although not necessarily). — Squeeze on budgets—Schools inevitably have to consider new ways of making resources go further, and school partnerships offer opportunities here. Federations for example where two or more schools come together can happen for many reasons, but reducing overheads is often a key driver. — Academy chains—There is a greater sense of compulsion (top down from Government) at the present time where schools see that they may be forced into an academy chain if it is considered that joining an established alliance may help to improve attainment. Small groups of schools in a local area can also decide to form their own academy chain and this may result in a good level of real partnership working to address common issues. NASP recognises that a school system based entirely upon individual school choice without strategic direction and some level of interference from Government is unrealistic (and probably undesirable). However, if schools are going to benefit long-term from real partnerships that begin to transform the system, then a large degree of autonomy is always going to be important. Otherwise there is a risk of one system (Government/ Local Authority controlling) being replaced by a similar one (Academy Chains/Teaching School Alliances controlling) and a real school partnership driven system, with all of the benefits this can bring, may not become a reality. Accountability is also another key issue that has to be considered from above (by Government/Ofsted). In encouraging the formation of school partnerships, the issue of making schools more accountable to each other could be tackled. Should highly-performing schools become more accountable for other schools in their area? There are formal mechanisms for this to happen such as National Leaders of Education (NLEs), Teaching School Alliances and Academy Chains, but as discussed above, these systems are not necessarily truly cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w63

partnership driven (although of course they can be). With the current system of teaching school alliances, there is generally one “teaching school” at the centre with other partners schools making up the alliance. These other partner schools may be as highly-achieving as the central teaching school but they do not necessarily have the same accountability to other schools as the teaching school does. Ofsted could have a stronger role to play in providing incentives for the development of school partnerships. The work of Christine Gilbert Towards a Self-Improving System: The role of school accountability (NCLS 2012) is relevant to the issue of incentives. She states that Ofsted could make reference in their reports “to the role played by school-to-school support in the school’s progress and indeed, to the schools support for system development.” Ultimately the success of a self-improving and partnership driven school system will be based upon the success of the partnerships that schools are able to form with other schools. For this to happen there does need to be some support mechanisms in place such as offered by NASP, and other strategic or “middle-tier” organisations such as Local Authorities also need to make the case and provide advice and support. Helping school leaders to fully understand the beneﬁts of forming meaningful partnerships is probably the best incentive there is.

If and how the potential tension between school partnership and cooperation, and school choice and competition can be resolved This particular question cuts to the very heart of the issue that many school leaders face when considering cooperation with other schools in their area (competition between schools can be more relevant when the schools are located in the same area). The school system is becoming far more of a marketplace where schools should be able to choose the support and partnerships that is right for them. A school leader may choose to develop closer ties or partnerships with other schools in the area because ultimately this will bring benefits to their school. All schools are judged on their performance against Ofsted criteria that does not take full account of the tendency or otherwise of a school’s collaboration with others. This point however could be overcome by supporting schools to recognise the many benefits that can be gained from entering into meaningful partnerships, and how this can ultimately impact positively on their performance as an individual school and their Ofsted rating. School partnerships are not by default good things. They are only good if they produce results for the schools involved, so how can we support schools to recognise the benefits and make the right choices? NASP believes that it provides an important part of the answer, but everyone from Government to Local Authorities and governors need to recognise and promote the benefits. This is easier to address however when it comes to underperforming schools as they should be able to see the benefits of working with highly-performing schools. This is why there needs to be a continued effort to encourage highly-performing schools to recognise what they may gain from working with other schools in partnerships. Part of the lure at the moment, whether it be through teaching school alliances or another process, appears to be more focused on kudos for the highly-performing school and its head. We recognise that this is an important factor in encouraging successful school leaders to initiate and develop partnerships, but their enthusiasm is likely to be maintained longer-term if they are able to understand the benefits to their own school. This might be through the development of staff through becoming SLEs for example. For a useful insight into the issues facing policy makers and schools leaders relating to teaching school alliances, the 10 challenges set out in Teaching Schools: First among equals? (Matthews and Berwick for NCSL 2013) offer useful reference points that reflect the need for a continued effort to ensure that teaching schools deliver benefits in the longer-term for all schools involved. For example Challenge 2 “How to maximise the methods, contributions and findings of evaluation and research so as to inform and guide practice.” To go back to our original point about the marketplace for schools, it is likely this will work more effectively for all and achieve better results if there is a support mechanism, such as proposed through NASP, that helps to guide (rather than force). In a true self-improving partnership driven system, this can be lead by schools leaders themselves if there are mechanisms (local or national) to support them. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly of all, the capacity of school leaders operating within the current school system to lead successful (or indeed unsuccessful) partnerships is key. NASP exists to offer resources and contacts to school leaders who have many (sometimes competing) demands on their time. Why do some school leaders of highly-performing schools initiate partnerships and teaching school alliances when others in a similar situation do not? An appreciation of the potential benefits to their schools as discussed above may be part of the answer. Capacity to take on more accountability may be something that some school leaders and their governing bodies do not think is a priority as their schools is already doing very well against the “competition” as referenced in the question above.

Whether converter academies’ requirements to support other schools, including in their funding agreements, are sufﬁciently and effectively policed Stand alone converter academies tend to be conﬁdent, independent, competitive schools with little or no interest in the wider system. Their commitment to form and develop real collaboration is often negligible. At best they show a willingness to help a weaker school. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w64 Education Committee: Evidence

Whether academies sponsored by another school receive sufﬁcient support from their sponsor Some academies sponsored by a school do get support but as with the previous answer this depends on the motivation of the sponsor and the collaborative capital and trust that exists between the institutions.

Whether school partnerships drive effective school improvement The principle being driven by Government is that school improvement is more likely to be achieved through school partnerships and collaboration than by top-down national strategies overseen by Government and Local Authorities. Whether this comes from evidence (and there is good evidence from abroad) or from a political commitment to marketisation of public services (or both), school partnerships need to deliver results. NASP’s view is that school partnerships can achieve beneﬁts for all schools involved. However, given the rate of transition from Local Authorities to a more open and decentralised system, school and system leaders need effective support mechanisms and access to information, resources and people in similar situations to themselves who can offer mentoring and guidance. NASP aims to offer this and we would like to work with Government and other national organisations to see this happen more effectively. It would help everyone understand the impact of school partnerships if Ofsted had a clear focus on them as referenced above through Christine Gilbert. The long-term evidence of the success of a partnership driven self- improving system is lacking at present, so there does need to be a concerted effort by all involved, including Government, to monitor progress, disseminate good practice and encourage mentoring and greater accountability between schools. It would also help if there was good scrutiny of the many emerging teaching school alliances, not just focusing on results (through analysing ﬂoor targets) but how improved results (or otherwise) have been achieved and whether this was through reciprocal partnership working between schools or through a more traditional “done-to” approach.

Whether there are any additional upsides or downsides for highly performing schools supporting others through partnerships The motivation and level of understanding of the leaders of the high achieving schools make the difference. I have observed several examples where the high performing leader appears to have been motivated by a desire to join an “elite club” of national leaders or teaching school leaders for the status it offers them and where this is the case the negative impacts can be signiﬁcant. Their sudden arrival in a local area can be very disruptive and damaging to existing positive collaborative arrangements. October 2013

Written evidence submitted by Southend Education Trust (SET) SET is a partnership of schools that has its roots in an Education Action Zone formed in 1999. From 2008 to 2013 the partnership included all the schools in Southend (54) and is a limited company with charitable status. The partnership has been a great success generating millions of pounds that was used to provide additional and enhanced educational opportunities for the beneﬁt of Southend Young People. There is signiﬁcant evidence that the Trust has resulted in positive impacts in a wide range of areas. We work towards a common purpose and encourage staff, children, young people and families to see themselves as members of an exciting learning community where school leaders are as concerned about the improvement of others as they are about their own. In 2012 Westcliff High School for Girls, a highly selective grammar school, was awarded Teaching School Status and this has resulted in the demise of SET as a mature teaching school alliance without all the advantages of government patronage. As a result the partnership is in the process of transforming itself into a smaller deeper partnership of 15 primary schools with a tighter focus on school improvement and less emphasis on system leadership.

The differing forms of school partnership and cooperation, and whether they have particular advantages and disadvantages As the questions recognises, there are many different forms of school partnership, and this reﬂects the relative freedom that individual schools have to decide what is appropriate for them. It should also be recognised that an individual school decision to continue a close working relationship with a Local Authority is also a form of partnership that is now the result of a choice made against other options. It is early days for many school partnerships, particularly teaching school alliances which is the closest to a Government sponsored system with some (fairly limited) funding available for partnership costs and opportunities for accessing Government research funding and schemes such as Schools Direct for initial teacher training. NASP’s own experience, and this also a key point regarding the depth of partnerships as set out clearly by David Hargreaves for (A self-improving school system: towards maturity NCSL 2012), is that size and cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w65

commitment matter as much as the nature of the partnership structure. Generally, particularly at the initial stage, smaller partnerships have a greater chance of success as there will in most cases be a good reason for two or more school to be collaborating (similar demographics and/or a shared location). These smaller partnership offer the opportunity for all schools taking part to be fully active in terms of cooperation (reciprocal), rather than one stronger school (for example an outstanding school which leads a teaching school alliance) dominating through a “done-to” system. There is however limited evidence at this stage of how different partnerships perform in terms of pupil attainment. At this stage it is as much about adopting a principle that strong school collaborations must be at the heart of a well functioning self-improving system, and that this will in turn lead to higher levels of pupils attainment. Not all school partnerships are the same of course, and the smaller is better principle may not extend to academy chains where there is limited evidence that larger chains, with an established executive leadership (over and above headteachers), had managed to outperform smaller academy chains and individual schools (NCSL The Growth of Academy Chains: Implications for Leaders and Leadership 2012). However, academy chains are not necessarily based upon a reciprocal partnership with schools in a chain becoming integrated into an established ethos and shared principles and it will be interesting to see whether this trend can be maintained.

Ev w66 Education Committee: Evidence

— Academy chains—There is a greater sense of compulsion (top down from Government) at the present time where schools see that they may be forced into an academy chain if it is considered that joining an established alliance may help to improve attainment. Small groups of schools in a local area can also decide to form their own academy chain and this may result in a good level of real partnership working to address common issues. NASP recognises that a school system based entirely upon individual school choice without strategic direction and some level of interference from Government is unrealistic (and probably undesirable). However, if schools are going to benefit long-term from real partnerships that begin to transform the system, then a large degree of autonomy is always going to be important. Otherwise there is a risk of one system (Government/ Local Authority controlling) being replaced by a similar one (Academy Chains/Teaching School Alliances controlling) and a real school partnership driven system, with all of the benefits this can bring, may not become a reality. Accountability is also another key issue that has to be considered from above (by Government/Ofsted). In encouraging the formation of school partnerships, the issue of making schools more accountable to each other could be tackled. Should highly-performing schools become more accountable for other schools in their area? There are formal mechanisms for this to happen such as National Leaders of Education (NLEs), Teaching School Alliances and Academy Chains, but as discussed above, these systems are not necessarily truly partnership driven (although of course they can be). With the current system of teaching school alliances, there is generally one “teaching school” at the centre with other partners schools making up the alliance. These other partner schools may be as highly-achieving as the central teaching school but they do not necessarily have the same accountability to other schools as the teaching school does. Ofsted could have a stronger role to play in providing incentives for the development of school partnerships. The work of Christine Gilbert Towards a Self-Improving System: The role of school accountability (NCLS 2012) is relevant to the issue of incentives. She states that Ofsted could make reference in their reports “to the role played by school-to-school support in the school’s progress and indeed, to the schools support for system development.” Ultimately the success of a self-improving and partnership driven school system will be based upon the success of the partnerships that schools are able to form with other schools. For this to happen there does need to be some support mechanisms in place such as offered by NASP, and other strategic or “middle-tier” organisations such as Local Authorities also need to make the case and provide advice and support. Helping school leaders to fully understand the benefits of forming meaningful partnerships is probably the best incentive there is.

If and how the potential tension between school partnership and cooperation, and school choice and competition can be resolved This particular question cuts to the very heart of the issue that many school leaders face when considering cooperation with other schools in their area (competition between schools can be more relevant when the schools are located in the same area). The school system is becoming far more of a marketplace where schools should be able to choose the support and partnerships that is right for them. A school leader may choose to develop closer ties or partnerships with other schools in the area because ultimately this will bring benefits to their school. All schools are judged on their performance against Ofsted criteria that does not take full account of the tendency or otherwise of a school’s collaboration with others. This point however could be overcome by supporting schools to recognise the many benefits that can be gained from entering into meaningful partnerships, and how this can ultimately impact positively on their performance as an individual school and their Ofsted rating. School partnerships are not by default good things. They are only good if they produce results for the schools involved, so how can we support schools to recognise the benefits and make the right choices? NASP believes that it provides an important part of the answer, but everyone from Government to Local Authorities and governors need to recognise and promote the benefits. This is easier to address however when it comes to underperforming schools as they should be able to see the benefits of working with highly-performing schools. This is why there needs to be a continued effort to encourage highly-performing schools to recognise what they may gain from working with other schools in partnerships. Part of the lure at the moment, whether it be through teaching school alliances or another process, appears to be more focused on kudos for the highly-performing school and its head. We recognise that this is an important factor in encouraging successful school leaders to initiate and develop partnerships, but their enthusiasm is likely to be maintained longer-term if they are able to understand the benefits to their own school. This might be through the development of staff through becoming SLEs for example. For a useful insight into the issues facing policy makers and schools leaders relating to teaching school alliances, the 10 challenges set out in Teaching Schools: First among equals? (Matthews and Berwick for NCSL 2013) offer useful reference points that reflect the need for a continued effort to ensure that teaching schools deliver benefits in the longer-term for all schools involved. For example Challenge 2 “How to maximise the methods, contributions and findings of evaluation and research so as to inform and guide practice.” To go back to our original point about the marketplace for schools, it is likely this will work more effectively for all and achieve better results if there is a support mechanism, such as proposed through NASP, that helps to guide cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w67

(rather than force). In a true self-improving partnership driven system, this can be lead by schools leaders themselves if there are mechanisms (local or national) to support them. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly of all, the capacity of school leaders operating within the current school system to lead successful (or indeed unsuccessful) partnerships is key. NASP exists to offer resources and contacts to school leaders who have many (sometimes competing) demands on their time. Why do some school leaders of highly-performing schools initiate partnerships and teaching school alliances when others in a similar situation do not? An appreciation of the potential beneﬁts to their schools as discussed above may be part of the answer. Capacity to take on more accountability may be something that some school leaders and their governing bodies do not think is a priority as their schools is already doing very well against the “competition” as referenced in the question above.

Written evidence submitted by Cllr Ralph Berry, Bradford Cooperation Collaboration and Leadership toDrive up Achievement In Bradford where I am portfolio holder for children and young people we have reintegrated our once privatised education services through a detailed process of negotiation with all involved, securing widespread ownership and support for remodelling services. Councils are well placed to exercise such leadership that pulls together all agencies and partners. Bradford has progressed since 2001–02 when a major intervention was undertaken that led to one of the few major outsourcing exercises of Educational to the point where we have no High schools in intervention, and we have Primary and Secondary schools moving up signiﬁcantly in term of Ofsted Judgements. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w68 Education Committee: Evidence

In July 2011 the order of Direction regarding Bradford Education Services [a contract run by SERCO] was rescinded and new arrangements that had been locally built in a collaborative partnership with all stakeholders were set in place. Operational Staff transferred to the local authority on time, on budget. What led to this? Bradford accepted that a new partnership led approach to leading the Education System was needed, and that high level of commitment was needed from Educational Leaders and the local Authority and its partners to achieve a transformation in educational outcomes for the City that had not been delivered during the period of the outsourcing. The system had become conflicted, responsibilities were not shared, performance was very uneven and in overall terms not acceptable but had begin to rise after a major review when the focus of Improvement and Accountability for School performance and outcomes what established in the Education Improvement On Board .The Politically led BAORD ALSO HAS Governors, Head teachers and Strategic Partners represented, and was also attended by DFE until the end of the Direction. This paved the way for the new model of delivery. There was extensive consultation in 2010; this revealed great determination to rebuild a local Bradford model based upon collaboration, cooperation and challenge. The model developed had all party support and significant “Civic” support from the wider community. The models for services that were to return for Serco were discussed and designed by the delivers and recipients of the services under review, extensive work with SEN services and voluntary groups. We had a complex and conflicted set of arrangements that had in 2005–06 seen Bradford with one of the highest levels of Schools in Ofsted Interventions. This was re built to create a clear focus on challenge support and accountability at the highest level, whilst working with all partners to build locally collaborative structures to ensure the schools scheme began to build the sort of interdependent and supportive system leadership that goes with a more devolved system with a range of forms of Governance. We currently have no High Schools in Intervention and only two Primaries. The Council has accepted a central leading role, but this role needs to be exercised in partnership with a range of agencies, and that schools need support and challenge within a consistent framework, and that the overall accountability for outcomes for the Children of the City is prime concern for its Elected Leaders. A fracturing middle tier does not do away with the need for tough decisions, the “where”, “how” and “what”, be it new schools sites, admissions, the size of schools, closures or the support and challenge services need to be given in order to tackle underachievement. This, too, requires clear direction and local democratic accountability. Our recent Ofsted inspection showed how integrated local early intervention services both protect children and support families while also saving on more costly interventions further down the line. That needed a local authority with a mandate to meet the needs of its communities to use the full range of interventions and powers. It also means real integration of all children’s services across the range of agencies, so that the children’s trust has a mandate make that happen especially with the community health and public health services. Under the old outsourced system time take to identify school in difficulty was too slow, and the ability to source support and early intervention was very poor. There was a constant need to revise contractual issues, which incurred legal costs of that, and a confusing set of responsibilities that were fragmented and seen as incoherent; this led to a growing determination to build a model based upon collaborative local principles. We rebuilt the trust by re engaging heads parents governors, and parents and then together we worked up a common model for role of the Council as overall Leader but a Leader that accepted of its strategic role and nurtures co determination and partnership roles in areas that had once been its sole prerogative. There was for Bradford no nostalgia for the past and a readiness to adapt local political structures with the new schools and Educational partnerships that are growing in the City.

The New System Leadership Bradford’s Improvement Strategy. “We are working in close partnership with schools and other educational Settings to ensure we are able to provide children and young people with The best possible opportunities to learn and to develop. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w69

We will focus relentlessly on improving outcomes in all areas, particularly English and mathematics. We will work in collaboration with all relevant Agencies to reduce the impact of disadvantage on learning outcomes and Ensure equality of opportunity. We acknowledge that school leaders are the people best placed to meet the challenge of raising standards and eliminating underperformance. We Will direct resources and expertise to develop structures which support this approach. We will play a strong coordinating and supporting role to improve school to-school support across the district and develop efﬁcient and effective Relationships with other partner organisations such as voluntary and Independent providers, further education and higher education. We want a district where all children and young people learn and develop so they can achieve their full potential. We will strive to promote a strong Educational community in the Bradford District that we can all be proud of, And that will meet the needs of all our children and young people. Our collective achievement will be measured by the success of our weakest students and opportunities for the strongest students to excel.” — To do this we will work with schools and other partners to ensure all children and young people attend schools that are good or better, so raising the attainment of children and young people and narrowing the achievement gap for all underachieving groups. — Support language development, reading and communication. — Ensure diversity, creating inspirational experiences for children and young people. — Establish, and maintain into adulthood, a desire for learning and skills development. — Ensure that sufﬁcient places and appropriate learning environments are available for all children and young people.

The Role of the Council and Democratic Leadership We have moved to a model of leadership where the local Authority actively engages with all partners to ensure the best outcomes for Bradford Children, and is working to ensure networks of leadership develop and that our roles of challenge and support are exercised openly and transparently. This is led from a multi Agency Children’s Trust which has Head Teachers involved from all phases Chaired by the lead member. The Education Improvement Board is chaired by the leader and man Party Leaders as members, and reports to the Trust and District Partnership. The basis of our assessment is a Prioritised assessment of the Schools in Bradford [now including free Schools, the Local Converter Academies and Dixons Academies always worked with us]. All OFSTED inspections since the new framework came in have complemented the proportionate support of the Council to schools. We have worked to support the development of the Bradford High Schools Partnership. This now has all but one schools [a Free School with a recent poor Ofsted which is now seeking to join]. The partnership provides rigorous assessment and challenge and has been able to work with the Council to address rapidly issues in High Schools that in past years led to periods of sharp decline and difﬁculty. It is a model praised by Sir Michael Wilshaw at the recent North of England Education Conference, Mr Wilshaw noted the Councils preparedness to develop such models of shared collaborative leadership. We have locality based partnerships of Schools, which have evolved into shared commissioning, training and support and developing of staff, one partnership known as “Shine” has recently evolved into a Co Operative Trust in West Bradford comprising of around eight Primary Schools. We expect more such initiatives. The local Authority is working with this Trust as a partner and envisages major improvements as a result of sharing leadership development and targeting of achievement activity across a wider network of schools in one Trust. Bradford Schools will next year assume ownership of three well regarded outdoor Education facilities two of which are in the Dales, again a co operative or mutual model is being developed to ensure assets and services that schools have a direct stake in are where possible something schools have a direct stake in . All Schools including Academies are involved with Schools Forum funded improvement activity, as well as the use of a £750.00 investments in improvement activity made by the Council upon the transfer of services in July 2011. All Bradford Schools are Prioritises by four categories so that proportional intervention is then put in places. Working with Bradford High Schools partnership data is available to the Education Improvement Board which sits in the Council relating to all Schools bar one [currently struggling] Free School which is soon to be cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w70 Education Committee: Evidence

admitted to the partnership [at which point that issue is resolved], so the overarching role as champion for all Children is clear. We have move quickly to deal with identiﬁed challenges, but we do seek additional powers that we need to support and intervene where problems are identiﬁed though the local processes quickly, an example is as I write we await the agreement for two Interim Education Boards to deal with Governance failures in Governing Bodies in Community Schools. We also have a local Free School where we would have on the basis of its Ofsted sought the removal of the Governors , but it is working with us on renewing its Governors by choice, but its could decide not to engage with local support. It was the only High School not in the local Partnership which is I feel very relevant. Increasingly schools in Bradford are pooling their autonomy and sharing services and projects and working with the Council, an example is our Industrial Centres of Excellence, a Council led initiative with Industry and FE to meet the needs of the Economy for skills The investments made in Nursery Schools, Early Intervention and work with families with complex needs have clearly helped. Primary schools are now developing similar arrangements with active Council support. http://www.bradfordpartnership.com/ http://www.bradford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/20B369C7–1820–4D8A-8959-C4F407CE2CB9/0/ BradfordCouncilEducationImprovementStrategy20122015.pdf http://www.bradford.gov.uk/bmdc/education_and_skills/schools/industrial_centres_excellence

Future ofCollaboration atTime of Reducing Resources The Collaboration principle needs also to extend to the regional and Sub Regional Agenda, we know neighbouring authorities at times need support and indeed we were some years ago one such Authority .A well supported programme of mentoring and peer Review was being developed to address these challenged, this reﬂects the local principles and was working to develop local ownership to, as we see with schools supporting schools, Councils supporting others in areas of matched need. It is very unfortunate that having just developed the ambitious plans to roll out a programme of Peer challenges and support out, the CIB funding was suddenly cut. Bradford is currently supporting ﬁve other Local Authorities in areas of Children’s Services, but in the absence of wider funding this ability to support other Councils is much reduced.

The Differing Forms of Partnership andCo-operation, and whether they haveAdvantages and Disadvantages Bradford has seen the development of a number of locality and District wide partnerships as a reﬂection of the changes word of Governance and leadership. We see the change as one that is based upon empowering the local leaderships to become partners of shaping and delivering serves and working with partners in other agencies to deliver the Children’s Plan for Bradford. Bradford is continuing to seek the integration of services around the child and family, and is working with its schools and Nursery Schools and Children’s Centres’ to drive this agenda forward, this is consensual and based upon clear objectives for children in a city with high levels of Poverty, Infant Mortality and starting from a platform of low levels of achievement that are now rising at a signiﬁcant rate. The reluctance of some Academies at times to play the role of local delivery hub is creating challenges to this model. I am of the view that developed partnerships in localities linked to the overall Trust Board is delivering new models of integrated Safeguarding and Early intervention as pre school experiences are key to ensuring standards continue to rise in Bradford.

Whether Schools have Sufficient Incentives to Form Meaningful Relationships with other Schools The future for schools that do not develop localised partnerships is bleak, for this reason we are priming the development of in particular Primary Partnerships and SEN schools at a time of fiscal reductions and rapid growth in pupil numbers. Schools that are isolated and not engaged with others, in my experience are a source of concern so our approach is to lead the “coming together” and prepare as “a parent”, to step back and redefine the relationship as the local partnerships grow. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w71

If and how thePotentialTension betweenSchoolPartnership and Co-operation and School Choice Competition can be Resolved The emergence of interdependent structures is assisting in this, as is the steady improvement in the number of local schools getting Good or better Ofsted reports. There are complex issue in Bradford that involves pressure on places to the extent that “Choice” or ability to express a preference is now constrained. The only sane options to drive up standards in the existing schools as the investment needed to create surplus places that “Choice” requires is not possible in the current environment. The growth of collaborative School models of delivery such as Industrial Centres of Excellence based in there High School networks shows that schools are increasingly working together on such models led or brokered by the local Authority.

Whether AcademiesSponsored byAnother SchoolReceive Sufficient Support from their Sponsor Firstly sponsors have not always delivered promised investment. Bradford has worked hard to ensure all schools get local support, and at the moment only a few Primaries have recently become “forced academies” with shall chains. The initial signs are that there is stretch and a lack of resource to tackle some challenging issues such as the arrival of significant new to English children. I believe the system is stretched and that the strength of local partnerships is more relevant than that which may on paper be available to a single school via a sponsor many miles away. That is affirmed by recent decision by Bradford RC Primary Schools to remain in partnership with the local system rather than opt to a Leeds based Academy Trust. It’s increasingly clear that we need to work with local partners and develop local capacity; a recently projected new High School with a major national Chain was pulled, leaving Bradford to source a local alternative; which we have done. We have Bradford College and Dixons as local sponsors; the latter has developed two new schools effectively but has not yet sponsored Primary schools in need of improvement. Dixons have taken on a major High School in need of major improvement.

Whether School Partnerships Drive Effective School Improvement? Based upon Council’s overarching role, good use of data and local information, yes strong local partnerships can ﬁll the gap that once was ﬁlled by Council or LEA staff. The Bradford Partnership is I believe and effective model that works well with the key role we play as a Council. These take some time to nurture but we have already seen major sharing of leadership to prevent a local School [Academy] improve, that move saw an experienced Academy Head and two Community School Deputies move to the school for two years to tackle the issues. It was as extremely effective. There is in fact no alternative as London based or Private Consultancies simply cannot source these leaders any more. For primary schools we see greater interdependence, such as the Bradford Schools Co Op Trust and “Hard” partnerships evolving and more use of Schools who we are supporting to develop leadership capacity that is in effect “network available”. October 2013

Written evidence submitted by pfeg (Personal Finance Education Group) Introduction 1. pfeg (Personal Finance Education Group) welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Education Select Committee on school partnerships and co-operation. 2. pfeg is the UK’s leading financial education charity. 3. pfeg is the most trusted, independent, provider of knowledge, support and resources for anyone teaching children and young people about money. Its mission is to ensure that all young people leaving school are equipped with the confidence, skills and knowledge they need in financial matters to take part fully in society. 4. pfeg know that each school or college is unique, and we provide a bespoke service which is accessed through our free advice line, website and face-to face sessions. 5. pfeg works with government, opinion formers and key bodies, campaigning for consistent, quality financial education for children and young people. We provide the secretariat for the All Party Parliamentary Group on Financial Education for Young People. The group has 253 cross-party members making it the largest active APPG. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w72 Education Committee: Evidence

6. pfeg believes that financial education is needed in schools to ensure that every young person in the UK gains the skills, knowledge and confidence they need to make informed decisions when managing their money. 7. pfeg is not affiliated to any one organisation and does not market or sell any financial products or services.

Response A Case Study—pfeg’s Centres of Excellence programme 1. pfeg welcomes the Education Select Committee’s inquiry into school partnerships and cooperation. pfeg firmly believes that partnerships and cooperation between schools and with other sectors such as the third sector can be an excellent mechanism to deliver life-long learning that has a wider impact on other schools and organisations in the local community, fostering the development of young people and promoting sustainability in the delivery of education. 2. In line with these values, pfeg has developed its Centres of Excellence programme. A Centre of Excellence is a school or a cluster of schools that has embraced personal finance education, embedding it and disseminating it in the local community. Schools or a cluster of schools are assessed against a robust and wide ranging criteria to ensure that all pupils receive lessons and activities and leave school with the necessary skills, knowledge and confidence to be able to make informed and independent financial decisions in the future. 3. Crucially, pfeg works in partnership with organisations to support schools achieving Centre of Excellence status on a local or regional basis. One of the key principles reflected in the programme’s criteria is a commitment to partnership working. Partnership working with pfeg is characterised by a relationship of equals in which pfeg and school staff go on a journey of development at a pace set by the school/s. Furthermore, a Centre of Excellence works in partnership with educationalists locally as they must: — Act as an ambassador for financial education. — Support the development of financial education in other schools by disseminating and showcasing its work for example through school networks, conferences, teacher training or the media. 4. Schools are encouraged to take part in the programme because of the investment and training that leads to school development, benefitting teachers, pupils and the wider community. In return, high performing schools with many “outstanding” characteristics are encouraged to cooperate with other schools as part of the criteria for excellence, enshrining sustainability and a wide reach into the Centres of Excellence model. To give an example of the reach and impact of a Centre of Excellence, a cluster in Plymouth: — has shared financial education with 15 local primary schools and three Academic Councils; — runs PSHE conferences to enhance the teaching of financial education; — collaborates with other teachers in Plymouth to develop resources; and — runs a wide range of mathematics conferences, having a significant impact on schools in the city and beyond—both in the South West and at a national level. 5. pfeg believes that successful cooperation between schools can take place through continuing professional development (CPD) for teachers. To foster the aims of improving both school cooperation and supporting CPD, pfeg offers a conference each year to share and disseminate good practice for existing Centres of Excellence and funders. At the conferences, each centre will be encouraged to share good practise and invite partners from neighbouring schools to participate. Objectives include: — enabling schools to share practical approaches to embed financial education within classroom settings; — showcasing good practice in embedding financial education within school settings; — inspiring and motivating schools to “spread the word” to other schools; and — sharing ideas, networking, giving feedback and driving improvement. 6. Successful partnerships and cooperation can take many forms. Currently, pfeg have a Centre of Excellence in Camden, London, which is disseminating good practise by training the Local Authority PSHEe advisor alongside the school staff. This method takes best advantage of the partnership opportunities and connections via local networks for this particular area, as the Local Authority contact in this area is best placed to spread the knowledge and training. Another altogether different method is visible at Dunkirk Primary School in Nottingham, whose Centre of Excellence status is sponsored by Experian. Dunkirk successfully share and disseminate their work across the Teaching Schools Alliance. They are involved in training trainee teachers to extend the delivery of financial education in the future. 7. The above examples illustrate that partnerships and cooperation between schools must be bespoke to the circumstances of the school and the wider community. When resources, knowledge, training and best practice is shared in a wider context, the results can be outstanding. 8. There are currently 39 Centres of Excellence. Since acquiring more funding in 2012, the programme has entered a new phase of more rapid development. Three schools or clusters have been awarded Centre of Excellence status with a further 16 in process, there is funding in place for a 70 more over the next three years cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w73

and plans to roll out the programme across the UK. In due course pfeg will be able to measure and evaluate fully the impact of partnership and cooperation with other schools and the community. 9. If the Committee would like more information on the partnership model or a member would like to visit a Centre of Excellence to see best practice ﬁrst hand, pfeg would be very glad to provide more detail or facilitate a visit. October 2013

Written evidence submitted by Kent County Council 1. Context 1.1 It is now generally acknowledged that the most signiﬁcant ingredients in rapidly improving school performance are a strong pedagogy supported by collaborative practices, leadership continuity and a mediating layer between schools which supports and brokers systematic collaboration aimed at improvement. 1.2 “Improvement can and needs to come from the best knowledge and understanding among Academy teachers. That means professional autonomy needs to go hand in hand with a collaborative culture, with autonomous schools working in partnership to improve teaching and learning. The best teachers and schools need to provide the expertise and resources for all teachers to update their knowledge, skills and approaches in light of new teaching techniques, circumstances and research. Teachers should help one another to develop effective improvement strategies.” Andreas Schleicher, Deputy Director for Education and Special Advisor on Education Policy to the OECD, 8 March 2013, TES.

2. Kent Learning Partnership Leading Transformation in School Improvement 2.1 A Kent Learning Partnership proposal paper for a school led self improving system was shared with all schools across Kent in March 2012. The paper set out the rationale behind a collaborative approach to improvement: “All schools are, or need to be, on the improvement journey quickly, along the continuum from poor to fair, fair to good and from good to outstanding. We can only achieve this as a ‘learning community’ so that we learn from the best in Kent, in the UK and internationally, to secure more rapid and sustainable school improvement.” Kent Learning Partnership Paper shared with Heads in March 2012 2.2 Recognising that the creation of a positive climate for change within the schools was central to the success of this collaborative model for improvement, Kent County Council (KCC) invited all schools to participate in the development of Kent Learning Collaboratives. Headteachers increasingly recognise that developing teachers and leaders from within is the only way to support the school and system leaders of tomorrow, so seized the opportunity to work in collaborative groups of schools to identify, share and replicate best practice. Through this activity Headteachers are increasingly recognising that collaboration and more formal partnership arrangements must be at the heart of the school system, driving school improvement, improving efﬁciencies and developing new and innovative ideas. 2.3 “We are working together in a highly diverse education system, with greater freedoms and autonomy. This provides more opportunity for innovation and creativity in achieving excellence in schools and colleges. While there is much excellence and good practice in Kent schools we are not yet making the best use of it. This Partnership agreement is designed to create the chemistry of widespread improvement and all schools and colleges are invited to participate.” Kent Learning Partnership Paper shared with Heads in March 2012

3. Developing School Collaboratives 3.1 Collaboration developments began in June 2012. As at April 2013, there were 60 collaborative partnerships formed that have all produced a detailed action plan and been allocated funding by KCC, through the Schools Funding Forum. These involve 470 Kent schools (of 589 schools in total; this figure includes academies) in this way of working. The size of the collaborative partnerships ranges from four participating schools to our largest collaborative with 27 schools. This is a significant development for Kent schools and reflects the commitment of Headteachers and their Governing Bodies to developing a more mature system of school to school support.

4. Collaborative Action PlansInformed byRichLocalDataSets 4.1 Once formed the collaborative partnerships were advised of the availability of funding. This was conditional on an acceptable improvement plan that illustrated the activities and differences that would be made to teaching quality, leadership capacity and pupil outcomes as a result of joint activity. 4.2 KCC has encouraged all collaborative partnerships to set milestones for 2013/14/15. 4.3 School Collaborative developments have been supported by a vital planning tool developed by KCC, informed by Heads—a 2008–12 data proﬁle reﬂecting attainment and progress for every group of schools. This information has included clear comparators to national benchmarks and the gap data on all vulnerable groups. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w74 Education Committee: Evidence

We have also ensured that the collaborative partnerships have an understanding of district data, via the District Scorecard, and how it is contributing to the improvement within its overall community. This helps to focus activity on priority improvements and drive more focused collaboration.

5. Funding 5.1 Funding supports the collaborative activities identiﬁed in their plan and once agreed with KCC, the funding is assigned to a lead school within the partnership. Indicative allocations have been budgeted at £7,000 per primary and £15,000 per secondary school in the partnership, but funding is variable, dependent on the nature of the activities proposed.

5.2 Kent’s Schools’ Funding Forum agreed to allocate £5.2 million in 2012–13 to promote and support school to school collaboration. Having received a report in December 2012 detailing the progress, the Forum agreed to allocate a further £2.4 million in 2013–14 to support the further development of the School to School Collaborative initiative. This level of resource cannot be sustained indeﬁnitely and is designed to help build capacity and structures for on-going and more sustainable partnership arrangements for the future.

5.3 In light of the HMCI’s recent comments to the Select Committee about the role of Local Authorities: “Their job now is to broker school-to-school support. The best LAs identify good practice and get them to support under-performing schools through Federations and Clusters. LAs also have a role to incentivise these chains of schools to provide this support. It is hoped that central Government will provide that ﬁnancial support to LAs to do this work.” Michael Wilshaw’s response to Q40 from Mr Ward during the Education Select Committee on 13 February 2013. It is hoped that the Committee will encourage Government to provide the future resources to sustain this school improvement model, endorsed by the HMCI.

6. KCC as Leader, Broker, Facilitator, Supporter, Monitor, Challenger and Champion 6.1 KCC acts as the mediating layer that brokers, facilitates, supports and challenges the development of inter-school partnerships, so that we see more good and outstanding schools and improved outcomes for all children and young people in Kent irrespective of the structure, phase or denomination of individual schools.

6.2 The role of the Kent School Improvement Team has been to work with individual schools, broker partnerships of satisfactory, good and outstanding schools, encourage challenging ambitions and support the development of well focused improvement plans. They help to: — Clarify the priorities for improvement in a memorandum of understanding. — Map and align any current involvement with school improvement activity or initiative. — Broker and facilitate activity where required. — Support schools that may wish to work on a shared priority with an already established network or facilitate a new school to school collaboration based on awareness by the LA of schools with similar school improvement priorities. — Encourage the minority of schools who are yet to commit to a collaborative partnership to develop this way of working.

7. CreatingaSense ofMomentum 7.1 Kent’s collaborative partnership model has provided a framework where every school can continue its improvement journey wherever they are on the improvement continuum. We have seen existing collaborative groups form more formal partnerships and we have seen new partnerships develop. These include cross phase partnerships of primary and secondary schools. All are focused on raising attainment and spreading best practice across the schools to improve teaching and leadership capacity.

7.2 Academies have played a very active part in this development and are leading a number of partnership initiatives. It may be that the DfE could assist the development of collaborative partnerships by strengthening the requirement by convertor academies to contribute to school to school support.

8. Progress and Impact of School Collaboratives

8.1 Each collaborative partnership reports at the end of March (Qualitative Report) and again in September (Quantitative Report) on the progress and improvements achieved. These will inform a future report on progress to the School Funding Forum.

8.2 Attached to this paper are extracts from the ﬁrst qualitative report which summarises the key areas of focus and progress of the Kent Learning Partnership model of school to school support. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w75

EXTRACTS FROM A QUALITATIVE REPORT ON THE PROGRESS OF THE KENT COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS This collaboration would not have happened without the funding and support of KCC. We have worked together for several years but not worked strategically to collaborate on ensuring attainment. The range of activity is impressive and reflects exciting and creative programmes clearly designed to raise standards for all pupils and all are aligned to the priorities outlined in KCC’s Bold Steps for Education Improvement Plan. The difference in the range and scale of the activity between some collaborations reflects whether they are newly formed or more established. It is also clear that activity is being differentiated to need. Not all schools in the collaboration engage in all planned activity, but, as one would expect, activity is tailored to groups of schools’ differentiated needs. In the report in September the collaborations will be asked to identify which activities made the most significant contribution to pupil outcomes. This work is strategic rather than focussed on “quick wins” to ensure sustainability. All the collaboratives feel that they are making progress on a variety of fronts including: — Developing leadership at all levels. — Improving the percentage of good and outstanding teaching. — Developing best practice in all areas of the curriculum with particular focus on Literacy and Numeracy. — Sharing best practice across their school through learning walks, joint lesson observations and other forms of peer review. — Many schools getting together for shared development days. — Joint conferences around reading, writing and mathematics. — Improving Governance. Many of the collaboratives are describing activity where they are learning how to work together, develop trust and relationships, share good practice and support and challenge each other to continually improve. Since the formation of the collaborative hub, two schools in the partnership have had Ofsted inspections. Both schools were judged to have moved upwards from their previous inspections. Typical comments included: — It has given Headteachers a genuine reason to work collaboratively on locally identified priorities. — The collaborative has provided a forum for mutual support and understanding. — Since the collaborative was formed relationships have strengthened within the group and the sense of openness and trust has empowered Headteachers to discuss a wide range of topics impacting on standards within their schools. — Competition has given way to collaboration. We share data openly and we share our strengths and areas for development without fear of censure, and in the spirit of mutual support and improvement. — Support for small rural primary schools—economies of scale mean we can provide high quality professional development and school improvement activities which individual schools would not be able to manage. — Joint procurement of services—we already share the services of an Educational Psychologist and are now looking at joint procurement of Personnel services and the joint employment of a Foreign Language Assistant. These comments show clear indications of the strengths of the developing relationships within the partnerships. It is encouraging that collaborative partnerships are already monitoring and evaluating their work and looking at how to make their partnerships more successful from a good beginning. Areas for development have included: — Increasing the pace of improvement. — Delivering more joint Training Days. — Providing more opportunities for teachers to work across the schools in the collaborative. — Developing specific programmes, eg Achievement for All. — Developing collaborative work between the Governing Bodies. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w76 Education Committee: Evidence

Many of the Headteacher responses have reflected the positive impact of working in a collaboration: After six months schools are beginning to see how this collaboration can impact positively on their improvement. We very much value the opportunities this has created for our collaboration. We are a group of quite diverse schools who might not have worked together if this collaborative project had not come about. The diversity of our schools is proving to be extremely beneficial in terms of what we are learning from one another and the very different experiences we bring. We have already seen benefits to all the schools involved in the Alliance. Staff, Governors and pupils have enjoyed their joint activities and evaluation from these events has been overwhelmingly positive. We are committed to working together in the future and we are excited about the possibilities which are developing as we embed the collaborative approach into our planning for improvement. This collaboration has been a really positive experience and has had a marked impact on staff morale and on standards within the schools. We are proud of what we have collectively achieved for our children within the locality, through our strong, supportive hub based around school improvement. As a new Head in a new district there were few familiar faces at headteacher meetings until I was part of the collaborative hub. The turbulent first few terms with regard to budget issues and subsequent restructure have only been manageable due to the trust and support fellow Heads in the hub. We are developing a portfolio of collaborative work to evidence our work and good practice in addition to the data we will be providing in our summative report in September. The funding from the LA has enabled us to provide the necessary release time to facilitate joint activities and to provide high quality training events. We hope to see this funding continue if we are to maintain the momentum already gained through our work over the last 18 months. October 2013

Written evidence submitted by the School’s Co-operative Society South West

1. Background and introduction

1.1 The Schools Co-operative Society (SCS) is a secondary co-operative owned by its member schools who are all Foundation Schools with a Co-operative Trust. By becoming a co-operative trust school, the schools commit to embedding a set of co-operative values and principles41 throughout their operation and behaviour.

1.2 The SCS is a national network with a regional organisation, constituted as an Industrial and Provident Society. The South West has a regional branch with a current membership of 180 schools from ﬁve geographical constituencies and one constituency of special schools. These constituencies are developing their own local support networks.

1.3 The purpose of the SCS is: To be a self-sustaining community of Co-operative Schools and Trusts across the South West that exists to respond to the mutual needs of its members, and the realisation of their co-operative identities through their embedding of co-operative values and principles.

1.4 The development of the SCS SW has been enabled by some capacity for regional co-ordination through a part time co-ordinator, funded currently by a grant from The Co-operative Group. There are challenges to the future sustainability of co-ordinated activity without the resource to provide this input.

1.5 The SCS SW has a Regional Board made up of senior managers elected from member schools and is developing a Teaching & Learning Forum and a Leadership Forum. 41 Co-operative values: Organisational values (self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity) & Ethical values (honesty, openness, social responsibility and caring for others) Co-operative principles: 1. Voluntary and Open Membership, 2. Democratic Member Control, 3. Members’ Economic Participation, 4. Autonomy and Independence, 5. Education, Training and Information, 6. Co-operation among Cooperatives, 7. Concern for Community. International Co-operative Alliance (ICA) Statement on the Co-operative Identity (1995) cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w77

2. The differing forms of school partnership and co-operation, and whether they have particular advantages and disadvantages 2.1 Advantages: — SCS SW is a branch of a national network which enables a focus on local solutions to local problems. — It is democratically organised with mechanisms for the voices of all schools to be heard. — Being member owned, it has the potential to be directly responsive. — It is large enough to bring economies of scale and provide a large resource of expertise and experience. — Becoming a co-operative trust is new within the Education Sector. The organisation provides schools with the networking opportunities with the aim of reducing their isolation. 2.2 Disadvantages: — The geographic region is large and needs differ. It is important to foster a sense of belonging. — Potential for disconnection from the national SCS unless managed well.

3. Whether schools have sufﬁcient incentives to form meaningful and lasting relationships with other schools. If yes, what are they? If no, or not enough, what incentives would you like? 3.1 The newness of the co-operative trust model drives an intrinsic incentive to co-operate with schools in similar circumstances. 3.2 If the schools fully embrace their commitment to the co-operative values and principles, they will be motivated to co-operate with others. 3.3 The nature of relationships is ﬂuid. By the very nature a secondary co-operative, they will be organic and form around areas of need that appear at different times. 3.4 As partnerships increase in size, they require an element of co-ordination to drive and sustain their relationships, with an infrastructure that can facilitate it. This is a resource that must be costed in to partnership working. Recognition of the need for this and external funding to support it, is invaluable.

4. If and how the potential tension between school partnership and cooperation, and school choice and competition can be resolved? 4.1 As yet, untested but a co-operative solution could be explored. An advantage of co-operative schools is their common values base that aims to be inclusive of all pupils; this may not exist in the same way in, for example, faith schools or sponsored academies, who may seek to recruit pupils that match their particular characteristic qualities.

5. Whether school partnerships drive effective school improvement School partnerships can drive school improvement. Examples of how school improvement is currently being supported through the SCS Networks are listed below: 5.1 CPD with local HE establishments. Through the SCS SW both Plymouth University and the University of St Mark & St John will be providing masters level CPD opportunities in co-operative learning from autumn 2013, targeted at teachers in co-operative schools. Without the partnership approach this is unlikely to have been made possible. 5.2 SCS SW initiated CPD, to meet specific needs. Two regional conferences on teaching and learning in a co-operative school are being arranged for June 2013 with a further one on leading a co-operative school planned for the autumn of 2013. 5.3 Forums or learning communities are being set up to meet demand. 5.4 Nurturing partnerships with like-minded support organisations for mutual benefit, for example, the Success For All Foundation, The Campaign for Evidence Based Education, The Institute for Effective Education at York. Each have a working partnership with SCS SW and activities planned. 5.5 Pursuing opportunities to form a closer coaching/mentoring relationship between schools that are at different stages of their development, given the concentration of new and emerging Co-operative Schools and Trusts in the region. 5.6 Further school improvement opportunities through the SCS SW partnership are being discussed at a forum in July 2013. One intention is to set up school to school support through a version of “challenge partners”. The intention is to create this in a co-operative way to ensure that both parties/schools in the arrangement improve, rather than one benefitting more and the other being financially rewarded for the work. The co-operative approach is not a “soft” solution—indeed application of the values and principles indicate the opposite. The local solution also gives more opportunity for face to face dialogue that is open and honest. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w78 Education Committee: Evidence

6. How can highly performing schools be encouraged to co-operate better with others? Are there are any upsides or downsides for highly performing schools supporting others through partnerships It is not possible to “force” co-operation; it an option that must be chosen. The cultural context must be supportive of co-operative practice.

7. Are converter academies’ requirements to support other schools, included in their funding agreements, sufﬁcient and effectively policed? In the experience of SCS SW, the requirements are not sufﬁcient or effectively policed and there is no guidance. October 2013

Written evidence submitted by ATL Executive Summary 1. ATL welcomes this inquiry. We believe that: — Schools and colleges should be supported to work collaboratively to offer excellent teaching and learning, and to support pupils’ well-being, across a local area; — Partnerships come in many forms. This inquiry appears to be focussing on school-to-school cooperation, and ATL recommends that the Committee also considers partnerships between schools and other professions? (eg health and social care) as well as partnerships between education staff who learn and work together; — All partnership working takes time and administration, particularly to develop the clarity of roles and responsibilities required; — Partnerships and cooperation require trust, and a vision for quality that is pupil-centred; — The impact of partnerships and cooperation on pupils’ learning and well-being, on teachers’ professional development, and on school improvement is difficult to track, particularly in a system where schools are judged individually; — The biggest problem for school partnership & cooperation is the drive for schools to compete; — A solution would be to hold schools accountable for the education of young people across a local area, not just those in their own schools. This requires new thinking about accountability, and the role of the local authority or local governing boards in managing high quality education for all pupils; — League tables, where schools can improve their positions only if other schools move down, do not support a vision of all schools being excellent. They should cease; — A finer-grained school improvement system is needed, which supports schools to better identify strengths and weaknesses, and which enables schools to find partners who can reflect cooperatively on complex issues; — As Alan Steer states in 2010, “if the needs of children are the moral force driving education, institutional isolationism has no place.”

About ATL 2. ATL, the education union, is an independent, registered trade union and professional association, representing approximately 160,000 teachers, head teachers, lecturers and support staff in maintained and independent nurseries, schools, sixth form, tertiary and further education colleges in the United Kingdom. AMiE is the trade union and professional association for leaders and managers in colleges and schools, and is a distinct section of ATL. We recognise the link between education policy and members’ conditions of service. ATL exists to help members, as their careers develop, through first rate research, advice, information and legal advice. Our evidence-based policy making enables us to campaign and negotiate locally and nationally. ATL is affiliated to the Trades Union Congress (TUC), Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU), European Trade Union Committee for Education (ETUCE) and Education International (EI). ATL is not affiliated to any political party and seeks to work constructively with all the main political parties.

ATLPolicy 3. ATL’s education policy is underpinned by the professionalism of teachers. Teachers should be recognised for their knowledge, expertise and judgement, at the level of the individual pupil and in articulating the role of education in promoting social justice. Development of the education system should take place at a local level: the curriculum should be developed in partnership with local stakeholders and assessment should be cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w79

carried out through local professional networks. Schools should work collaboratively to provide excellent teaching and learning with a broad and balanced curriculum, and to support pupils’ well-being, across a local area. This means that mechanisms must be developed that ensure a proper balance of accountability to national government and the local community, and which supports collaboration rather than competition.

DifferingForms of School Partnership 4. ATL members identify a range of different partnerships in operation. These include: — school-to-school within a geographical area or across different areas; — school to school across different phases (eg between secondary schools and their local “feeder” primaries, secondaries and colleges, UTCs, and studio schools, or between primaries and nursery settings); — academy chain schools as well as partnerships between academies and other schools; — schools worldwide through collaborative partnerships; — local behaviour partnerships; — school sports; — teaching schools; and — between independent schools and maintained schools through requirements around charitable status. 5. These may be informal partnerships, or more formal through federations. Members who work in small schools point to the importance of partnerships for sharing resources and providing broad opportunities for pupils, particularly where there are difficulties in recruiting staff. 6. There are also partnerships between differing levels of staff. These may be through formal routes such as the National and Local Leaders of Education, or particular staff roles including former Advanced Skills Teacher roles, SEN Co-ordinators and subject co-ordinators. Locally supported moderation meetings or curriculum forums (including SACREs) offer partnership opportunities, and staff also work cooperatively with others through activity within trade unions and subject associations. 7. Members point to partnerships between schools and other organisations and professionals, which are supportive of professional practice and children’s learning. These may be with health and social care professionals, police and community organisations. Or they may be based on CPD needs, through links with Universities and teacher CPD providers (including the trade unions and subject associations which provide local and national professional development). 8. This inquiry would seem to be focussing on school-to-school/college cooperation. ATL recommends that the Select Committee considers the benefits and risks surrounding other forms of partnership, in order to identify effective ways of “driving school improvement” to the benefit of all pupils. 9. The advantages of partnership working depend on the types of partnerships involved. Members identify potential for cooperation to include: — sharing resources, including staff expertise; — developing consistent approaches in areas of concern (SEN, behaviour, admissions…); — peer-to-peer support, challenge and professional development; — supporting transition between schools for the benefit of pupils; — enabling local quality assurance of provision, and aiming to come to agreement about what makes effective practice and what good learning/progress looks like. 10. In 2006, Mel Ainscow (et al) suggested that “under the right circumstances, school-to-school collaboration is a powerful means of strengthening the capacity of schools to address complex and challenging circumstances.” They pointed to strong evidence that collaboration can widen opportunities and help address vulnerable groups of learners. 11. Members agree that partnerships can support flexible approaches with pupils, enabling broader curriculum provision, increased options for behaviour support, opportunities for teachers to work in different classrooms and with different practitioners, as well as opportunities for pupils to experience different ways of learning. 12. As Alan Steer stated in 2010, “If the needs of children are the moral force driving education, institutional isolationism has no place.” 13. All partnership working takes time and administration, particularly to develop the clarity of roles and responsibilities required. This may need local support, eg through the local authority, to broker those partnerships. Partnerships and cooperation also require the building of trust—between education staff, and between other professionals. Cooperation is not a quick-fix and partnerships need to develop over a number of years, particularly in situations where the culture of the school community needs to change. Otherwise, there is a danger of a “them and us” culture between different partner schools. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w80 Education Committee: Evidence

14. The current climate does not support long-term culture change, as all schools are judged on a single year’s worth of test results, and schools which fall below ﬂoor targets or are deemed to “require improvement” are given very short timescales to turn around. Teachers and leaders who feel that their jobs and their professionalism/vocation are under threat will ﬁnd it extremely hard to form meaningful partnerships.

15. Some members are concerned about the inﬂexibility of some partnerships, particularly hard federations. These can take an inordinate amount of time and bureaucracy to support and can be difﬁcult to undo should schools’ needs change.

“Highly Performing Schools”

16. ATL members have fundamental concerns about the concept of “highly performing schools” cooperating with others, for a number of reasons: — The assumption that excellent academic results are entirely the result of the school’s interventions, when they are also affected by pupils’ prior attainment and the levels of FSM, SEN etc within a school; — The assumption that schools may be uniformly “highly performing” (or conversely “low performing”), when most schools will have some departments/key stages which achieve excellent results and others which achieve less good results; — The assumption of uniformly high performance, when some schools will do very well with some groups of pupils, and may boost levels of progress with particular groups, but are not identiﬁed as “high performing” on other indicators; — The assumption that a school with excellent academic results will be able to articulate easily what it does in ways that another school can adapt and use.

17. A meaningful system of accountability, which supports schools to identify particular strengths and weaknesses in their practice, could enable schools to develop more effective cooperation. Systems would need to be put in place for schools to find others who have dealt successfully with similar issues. This would make for a much finer grained school improvement system which was not predicated on a model of some schools being “better” than others overall. This would benefit schools across the range of pupil “performance”.

18. Particular issues were raised by members about teaching schools, with concerns expressed that they are becoming exclusive and gaining a “monopoly on talent”. Others were unaware of teaching schools in their areas, suggesting in some cases that partnerships are not obvious. ATL recommends particular evaluation of the role of teaching schools in supporting cooperation and joint learning.

19. Members suggest useful roles to be played by staff working together across the primary and secondary transition. This can be a secondary school supporting work to raise levels of attainment and learning in primary schools, which enables pupils to feel more conﬁdent as they begin Year 7. It can also mean primary staff supporting secondary colleagues to develop effective practices in year 7 that are closely linked to the pedagogy of primary schools.

20. A meaningful system of accountability, which supports schools to identify particular strengths and weaknesses in their practice, could enable schools to develop more effective cooperation. Systems would need to be put in place for schools to find others who have dealt successfully with similar issues. This would make for a much finer grained school improvement system which was not predicated on a model of some schools being “better” than others overall. This would benefit schools across the range of pupil “performance”.

Tensions betweenPartnership andCompetition

21. Schools which are in competition with each other will ﬁnd it hard to develop meaningful partnerships. Highly performing schools within the partnership will need to continue to “look good” in order to attract parents.

22. Members suggested a range of ways of minimising the impact of competition on school partnerships, including: — encouraging more “vertical” partnerships (for example primary and secondary schools working together). This beneﬁts young people by encouraging smoother transitions, enables teachers across phases to share information about the children and their learning, as well as enabling sharing of resources (subject teachers or laboratory facilities from secondary to primary, or key stage 3 teachers learning about holistic teaching from primary colleagues). There are difﬁculties with this approach when pupils move on to a number of different (and competing) institutions; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w81

— encouraging partnerships beyond a geographical area, which can be managed through good use of technology. This would work well with a system where schools identify in more detail their particular strengths and weaknesses, and have time to consider practices in different contexts; — supporting partnerships between the independent sector and the maintained sector, which are mutually beneficial. Often independent schools have better facilities, which can be shared. But meaningful partnerships should go beyond sharing sports fields, and there are examples of partnerships where pupils from both schools attend lessons in the partner school. Sharing of support between teachers must be two-way: the assumption is often that the independent sector (as highly performing schools) will be the lead partner, but again a fine-grained system of school improvement will enable maintained schools to share effective practices from their own circumstances.

23. ATL members believe that removing the system of league tables would go a long way towards reducing competition, and developing meaningful partnerships between schools. League tables will always have some schools at the top and some at the bottom and in order for any school to improve another must go down. We need a system which encourages the idea that all schools can be excellent.

24. The current accountability system provides little incentive for meaningful partnerships. Those schools deemed “outstanding” by Ofsted and those which have high percentages of pupils achieving expected levels and grades are concerned that developing partnerships will take the leadership team focus away from their own school and may lead to lower results next time round. Schools which are told that they need partnerships in order to improve their results are already demoralised, and may be suspicious of potential partners in case they are looking for sponsorship opportunities rather than meaningful partnerships. As cooperation takes time, and needs to develop trusting relationships between staff, this is not a good place to start.

Incentives toDevelopMeaningfulPartnerships

25. The best incentive to develop meaningful partnerships is the positive impact on pupils’ learning and on teachers’ professional development. Different forms of partnership will have different outcomes, and ATL recommends that evidence of impact is made available to teachers and leaders, so that effective practices can be developed. This evidence should also be used to give credit to schools which work well together.

26. Members agree that continuity of funding is vital. Too many schemes for joint working are stopped before impact can be measured, because priorities have changed and the funding moves to new ideas.

27. Members also point to the vital importance of support for teachers to learn together, through shared CPD and opportunities to observe teaching and gain feedback from peers on their own teaching. This must be well- managed as a learning opportunity, separate from performance management.

28. It is vital that cooperation and partnership between schools is well-deﬁned, both in terms of what it should look like, and its intended outcomes. This must be shared throughout the community, including with governors, parents and pupils in each school. Effective leadership must maintain this shared vision. We would welcome the development of clear statements of the beneﬁts of partnership working in local areas where there are now many different types of schools operating,

TheRole of Academies

29. It is important to remember that Academies are not the panacea to school improvement, and that not all Academies are highly performing. Even convertor academies may not remain “outstanding”, and information from the HoC Library shows that of the 233 Academies inspected between 2008–09 and 2011–12, under half (113) were good or outstanding. So while it is important that Academies are expected to work in partnership with other schools, it should not be assumed that this is the same as expecting “high performing” schools to work with others.

30. Members are not convinced that the requirement for Academies to support other schools can be effectively “policed”, as funding agreements are “shrouded in conﬁdentiality”. They point to a need for greater transparency.

31. “Forced” partnerships, where a school is required to become an Academy and has little if any say in the choice of sponsor, will have great difﬁculty in developing the trust required for improvement to take place.

32. The Select committee recently heard evidence from the RSA Academies Commission about academies which had committed to support other schools, but had not followed through with this. This points to the need for a debate on how to ensure that collaboration and partnerships are enabling, and seen as a professional duty, but with a means to measure and ensure that it does actually happen. This is important in terms of ensuring that partnership working is more than a “buzz word”. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w82 Education Committee: Evidence

Partnerships and School Improvement 33. More research is needed to demonstrate the impact of school partnerships on pupil outcomes. However, we do know that they are vitally important for widening opportunities for pupils and for education professionals. 34. School partnerships should be developed as ways of improving the education system as a whole, rather than focussing on improving individual schools. October 2013

Written evidence submitted by Co-operatives UK About Co-operativesUK 1. Co-operatives UK is the national business association for co-operative and mutual enterprise. We work to promote, develop and unite co-operative enterprises across all sectors of the economy—from retail and ﬁnance where co-operatives are most recognised to key growth areas such as renewable energy, agriculture and education. 2. Together the co-operative economy is worth some £35.6 billion, is owned by nearly 13 million adult members in the UK and has grown by nearly 20% since the start of the credit crunch. Co-operatives UK has 75% of the UK co-operative sector in membership. 3. We welcome the opportunity to respond to this consultation on school partnerships and co-operation.

Summary 4. The co-operative model is a proven model of business partnership that has a close alignment with the ethos of educational values and excellence and is spreading in England as a result. 5. There is evidence from overseas of the success of co-operation and partnerships that we are aware of. 6. It will be of benefit to affirm the innovative work and success of co-operation here to date, noting the effort of pioneers in the field. 7. However, despite the success to date, there are some factors that stand in the way of further mainstreaming of co-operation among schools, including in particular a policy tendency towards: (a) Models of imposed partnership or the encouragement of inappropriate forms of sponsorship. (b) And the extent to which these fail to connect to the key local partners required for school success.

General Comments 8. Co-operative schools operate with three distinctive features: (a) They foster an ethos and entrench a formal commitment to public beneﬁt in the form of co- operative values that are shared worldwide. (b) They operate with a governance model that allows for the key partners in the life and success of a school to take responsibility and to be part of a democratic and inclusive model of accountability. (c) They are open to opportunities to embed co-operation in the educational process, such as encouraging non-cognitive skills around teamwork. 9. Co-operative Schools have formed a national network, the Schools Co-operative Society (SCS), which in turn is developing a regional structure. 10. The current trend is increasingly towards clusters of co-operative trust schools, creating co-operation at different levels of the educational environment—horizontal and vertical. 11. As of 1 May 2013, the Co-operative College, a pioneer in the ﬁeld, reports that there are 426 co-operative trust schools with around 100 more at consultation stage.

International Lessons 12. Co-operatives UK commissioned a paper in 2011, “Time to get serious”,42 in order to consider international experiences of public service delivery by co-operatives. 13. This included reference to the success of co-operation in schooling in other countries, such as Spain. 14. A number of reasons for the success of co-operatives schools in Spain can be indentiﬁed. 42 Time to get serious: International lessons for developing public service mutuals cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w83

A Supportive Environment forCo-operatives 15. There is a well-developed co-operative sector in agriculture and retail in Spain and employee-led co- operative models are well developed. In total there are over 25,000 co-operatives in Spain, employing nearly 318,000 people. The Spanish Constitution, post Franco, speciﬁcally recognised the positive role that co- operatives have in encouraging democratic participation. 16. Over the past three decades there have been a series of pro-active Government policies to support co- operatives. At regional level in Spain’s 17 autonomous communities, there are speciﬁc co-operative laws that set the framework for how they operate. The regional governments have also funded promotional activities to raise awareness, training and development programmes, start-up grants and loans. These have been available and used by the co-operative schools.

TheNature of thePeople and theService 17. The teachers that now own and run most of the co-operatives schools are well educated and are in salaried positions that allow them to borrow against their future salaries to pay their co-operative membership fees. These membership fees then provide a capital base for the enterprise to develop and grow. This is important in relation to other sectors where pay levels are much lower.

Partnerships andNetworks 18. Co-operatives are highly integrated into federative support networks. They operate in all of Spain’s regions and nationally. For example in Valencia a co-operative school will usually be a member of FVECTA, the regional body for worker co-operatives, which in turn is connected into a regional federation of co- operatives, a national federation of worker co-operatives and a national body for the wider social economy. Through FVECTA, the school will also be a member of the national Union of Co-operative Schools (UECE). 19. The importance of these networks is in the way they share and develop know-how in co-operative management, developing quite sophisticated approaches to training and development for the leadership and members of the co-operatives. In addition, they provide expert support, eg on legal issues, and lobby government on behalf of their members. In Valencia and the Basque country schools are also integrated into groups of co-operatives that work together as a trading blocks.

Responseto Speciﬁc Questions The differing forms of school partnership and cooperation, and whether they have particular advantages and disadvantages? 20. The advantage of using the co-operative approach for schools and partnerships is that it is a proven model that can operate at different levels. 21. It is reasonable that there may be different approaches in education and some beneﬁt in a diversity of models, but the distinct advantage of the co-operative approach is that it is bottom up, focused on and driven by the needs of members. It encourages self responsibility, rather than looking to an external, top-down commercial chain as a route to economies of scale, performance and innovation. 22. Our market research demonstrates that the co-operative model is recognised by the public as a form of business partnership, with a strong focus on ethics. It is therefore something that starts from where people are—in contrast to the weakness of so many public service models of partnership over the years that are complex, distanced and obscure to ordinary people.

How highly performing schools could better be encouraged to cooperate with others? 23. The co-operative approach is one that is based on shared values and reciprocity. Rather than assume that there needs to be a paternalistic ﬂow of support from one school to another, or a forced take over, we see that there are advantages recognised in co-operative school partnerships of mutual support, as this can: (a) allow for specialisation, reducing distractions for school leaders; (b) support shared learning on school improvement; and (c) achieve economies of scale, bringing shared beneﬁts. 24. The work of the Schools Co-operative Society in brokering improvement support and becoming an academy sponsor to formalise this is an example of such co-operation in action. 25. Policy recognition for and encouragement of patient, horizontal approaches such as this for school improvement would be a more effective use of scarce resources than top-down programmes of infrequent but intensive intervention. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w84 Education Committee: Evidence

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

26. We know from the work of the National Consumer Council in previous years that parents would strongly endorse the words of Brett Dye, Headteacher of Parc Eglos Primary School, a co-operative school in Helston, that “I want to see my school do well but not at the expense of ‘doing down’ someone else’s.”

27. Education is not a zero-sum game, so that models of competition alone are likely to reduce rather than increase overall outcomes, for all that it has been argued that it can also act as a pressure for comparative performance.

28. User choice, in school selection and in learning options, is distinct as a process to competition and it does not help necessarily to conﬂate it. There are signiﬁcant gains to be found from treating learners and parents as partners in education, in a co-operative way. Their choice can be enhanced by the democratic governance that a co-operative school offers, offering voice throughout their time in contact with a school, rather than the “single shot” choice of which school to start at.

29. In a fully commercial setting, though, co-operation and competition live together and businesses are used to the idea of co-operating in order to compete, whether through formal co-op structures and commercial partnerships or associations such as chambers of commerce.

30. Oxford University’s Eric Beinhocker is one of the best young economists in the UK today. His recent book, The Origin of Wealth, has ﬁve times as many references to cooperation as to competition. Cooperation, he says, “is as vital an ingredient in economic development as ‘survival of the ﬁttest’ individualism”.

31. Whereas businesses may start with a default of competition, though, and co-operate to succeed, we suggest that schools are far better placed, and learners far better served, to start with a default of co-operation.

Whether academies sponsored by another school receive sufﬁcient support from their sponsor?

32. Support should be organised in a transparent way, with effective brokering rather than through imposition.

Whether school partnerships drive effective school improvement?

33. We would refer to the evidence and research of the Co-operative College and partners in terms of how the key elements of the co-operative model can support effective partnerships that can drive school improvement, including: (a) Use of the membership, allowing for local responsiveness and support. (b) Parental engagement, aligning culture and organisational form in favour of a partnership approach to education. (c) Ethos and leadership that supports excellence.

Whether there are any additional upsides or downsides for highly performing schools supporting others through partnerships?

34. See our comments above on the beneﬁts of framing support as something that can have wider beneﬁts. October 2013

Written evidence submitted by The Brigshaw Co-operative Trust

My name is Peter Laurence. I am the Development Director of The Brigshaw Co-operative Trust, a partnership of seven primary schools, a high school and two children centres, who with our partners, including Leeds City College, Leeds City Council, Leeds Metropolitan University, CapeUK and The Co-operative Group, serve over 4,000 children, young people and their families across former mining communities in outer east Leeds. As a former high school headteacher, and more recently a regional adviser with the National College for Teaching and Leadership, I am aware of the importance of strong school collaborations in achieving better outcomes for young people, particularly when underpinned by genuinely co-operative values. Our Trust was established in April 2010, building on the work of the Brigshaw Federation of schools.

As a Co-operative Trust, we have expanded the support for vulnerable children and young people, extended the work done with families and the wider community, and have achieved a great deal to improve the quality of teaching, learning and curriculum enrichment across our schools. We believe that everybody’s aspirations and potential can be fulﬁlled much more effectively by working together, a view reinforced by the very favourable comments about the work of the Trust in schools’ Ofsted inspection reports, and the positive impact indicators across a very wide range of our work. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w85

For the Trust to work effectively, we have developed an annual development planning process overseen by our Trust Board and implemented through a number of Trust committees which have strong school and community representation. The Headteachers’ Group ensures that our shared priorities meet the needs of all of the schools, while other groups including a Leading Teaching and Learning group, the Guidance & Support/ Multi-Agency Partnership group, Community Services and Children’s Group, and Resource Management Group are responsible for the five key strands of Trust activity: 1. Teaching, learning, transition, curriculum collaboration and pupil participation. 2. Leadership and workforce development and CPD. 3. Supporting vulnerable children—multi-agency partnerships and extended services. 4. Working through children’s centres with families and the wider community. 5. Achieving better value and greater efficiencies. Practical outcomes include the development of a “0–19” approach which helps to ensure consistency and continuity for children at each stage of their education; provision of enrichment activities within and beyond the curriculum, for example supporting the 2012 Olympic Project, involving all of our pupils and over 200 young people from partner schools across the world. We run curriculum projects—eg “Murderous Maths” and additional support for numeracy and literacy, sports activities, and creative arts projects. We are currently establishing “hub” schools across the partnership to lead on specific areas, eg, Early Years, STEM, Literacy, Sports and so on. We enable sharing expertise and experience in teaching and learning, arranging joint training, support for newly qualified teachers, and creating career opportunities. There is a mutual support network for headteachers, and we offer a range of leadership development opportunities, for example through the Trust DHT and AHT network, and our Middle Leaders Development Programme. We arrange Chairs of Governors meetings to share and learn from each other and develop stronger mutual support, have introduced an Annual Governors Conference, and are able to create greater possibilities for local, bespoke governor training which is relevant to our schools. At a time when schools are expected to work ever more closely together, it is encouraging to see so many other schools in Leeds and across the region developing similar models to our own, and the Brigshaw Trust has been very much involved in working collaboratively and co-operatively with many schools across our region. October 2013

Written evidence submitted by Tiverton High School 1.1 The schools in Tiverton and the surrounding area, have all come together to form a co-operative partnership. Tiverton High School is a founder member of Tiverton Co-operative Learning Partnership. We are a group of 11 schools and a FE college. The schools comprise of 10 primary and one secondary school. It is a combination of community, voluntary aided schools and an academy. We are joined by a local business and voluntary groups. We came together to promote the achievement and success of all of the children in our community. A Trust Board oversees the partnership. A unique feature of the co-operative model of school organisation is that all stakeholders in the school (students, staff, parents and the community) have the opportunity to become members. 1.2 There is a wide base of evidence which shows that schools beneﬁt from working in partnership. Provision is improved when schools can pool resources and share expertise. The unique nature of this form of partnership lies in its non-paternalistic structure and culture. Members aspire to improvement for themselves and their community through shared moral values and a focus on success for all rather than competition and a fear of failure. 1.3 We proposed and support this particular kind of partnership because: — It is based on mutual trust and shared responsibility for children. — It promotes community ownership with parents as active participants in the education of their children rather than passively consuming an education product from a “supermarket school”. We believe the community and their children raise their aspirations when they have actively bought in to their community school. — It helps to ensure that as the role of the Local Authority changes, we have in place a mechanism for, and culture to, replace LA functions by challenging each other from a basis of shared understanding and commitment to the children of the area. — It enables partners to work together and challenge each other to raise standards across the area by co-ordinating learning and teaching across the phases. A robust process: Schools Improving Schools ensures we work together to root out underachievement. October 2013 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w86 Education Committee: Evidence

Written evidence submitted by Independent Schools Council

Executive Summary

1. Partnerships are supported across almost all independent schools within ISC — Over 93% of ISC schools are involved in partnerships with state schools (997 independent schools) or the wider community (1,075 independent schools). — The sheer scale and variety of involvement makes it difﬁcult to capture and portray all the facets of this cross-sector partnership without resorting to lists and case studies. But it is safe to say that clichéd descriptions of a “Berlin Wall” existing between the sectors are completely wrong.

2. Partnership models are numerous and diverse — 388 ISC schools open access to pupils from maintained schools to attend certain lessons or educational events; 123 ISC schools help prepare A-level pupils at maintained schools for entry to Higher Education; 78 ISC schools second teaching staff to maintained schools. — One of the most recent forms of partnership is the sponsoring of academies. Currently 20 ISC schools sponsor academies and 14 co-sponsor academies. — The sponsored academy model is just one of many. The London Academy of Excellence, supported by eight separate independent schools, is a good example of an innovative free school brought to life by the efforts of many across the independent sector.

3. Partnerships across sectors are not new — The King Edward VI Foundation, comprising within one foundation two independent schools, ﬁve grammar schools and one sponsored academy, dates back to 1547. Continuously innovative, the Foundation included the ﬁrst independent school to be awarded Teaching School status. — Other historic structural foundations/partnerships include the Woodard Foundation (1847, 19 independent schools and 22 state schools), United Learning (1884, 11 independent schools and 20 academies) and GDST (1873, 24 independent schools and two academies). — The historic involvement in education of Livery Companies, including the Mercers, Drapers, Haberdashers, Leathersellers, Skinners, Grocers and Merchant Taylors, down the centuries has created genuinely collaborative school networks.

4. The Independent/State School Partnership Programme should be reinstated and properly funded — Over a dozen years, the ISSP supported more than 350 projects involving around 1,500 schools with funding of around £15 million. Numerous external assessments of the scheme noted the positive outcomes for thousands of children. Without seed corn funding to pump-prime partnership initiatives, the ISSP has lost its mission. — The Committee’s attention is particularly drawn to the assessments of these cross-sector partnerships, referenced later in this submission, as they represent a helpful contribution to the issues raised by the Committee in this call for evidence.

In Detail

1. Partnerships across sectors are not new: “When in 1547, a Royal Commission dissolved the Gild of the Holy Cross, certain influential men of Birmingham petitioned Edward VI for the return of the gild lands in the form of an endowment for a free grammar school. On 2 January 1552 letters patent were sealed, granting this request and appointing 20 of the foremost inhabitants of the town as Governors of a school to be held in the old gildhall in New Street… By an Act of Parliament in 1831 the Governors were empowered to create other schools … [g]rammar schools were created at Aston, Camp Hill (Boys and Girls), Five Ways and Handsworth whilst King Edward’s School acquired a sister—the High School for Girls, housed in an adjoining building… Originally independent, financial considerations persuaded the grammar schools to become voluntary aided in the 1940s and converter academies from 2011. These seven selective schools, two independent and five grammar schools, have endured to the present day: the former admitting fee-paying students, the latter offering free education. It has been a formula for success. These schools enjoy excellent reputations both in the city and beyond. They currently educate pupils from a complete cross section of society and have produced men and women of distinction in many fields. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w87

From September 2010 the seven schools became eight following the Governors’ decision to sponsor an academy—King Edward VI Sheldon Heath Academy which is an all-ability school serving its local community in SE Birmingham. The newest member of the Foundation family of schools is one of the most consistently improving secondary schools in the country and will beneﬁt from brand new facilities from September 2013. There are now almost 7,000 pupils educated in the Foundation’s eight schools.”43

2. The partnership between these foundation schools remains fresh and relevant today. In 2011 King Edward’s School for Girls was awarded Teaching School status. The King Edward’s Consortium now trains secondary teachers on employment-based routes in 19 secondary schools in the Birmingham area. Inspectors recently described the key strengths of the partnership as including: consistently outstanding outcomes for trainees, including high completion rates, high rates of progression to employment, and subsequently to posts of signiﬁcant responsibility; rigorous recruitment and selection of high calibre trainees with impressive pre- entry qualiﬁcations, at higher levels, and good prior experience in education settings, which helps them to succeed; strong sense of learning community and the very effective communication, across the partnership, which ensures well-targeted intervention and secures high quality outcomes for all trainees; and very high quality placements, with a strong focus on subject knowledge development, which is effectively enhanced further through the central training.

3. Indeed, the Teaching Schools initiative provides a ﬂexible model for school-to-school collaboration. In an article this week entitled “What impact will the new teaching schools have on education?”, participating head teachers note that “a successful approach requires sharing good practice between schools, rather than one school imposing its vision on its partners … this involves a recognition that all schools can learn from each other. ‘There is a fundamental sense of working collaboratively,’ [the head] says. ‘Schools that are helping others will readily acknowledge they have learned as much from the process. It is win-win.’”44

4. Other innovative cross-sector partnership models abound. Take the London Academy of Excellence, for example. Eight leading independent schools support LAE: Brighton College, Caterham School, City of London School for Boys, Eton College, Forest School, Highgate School, Kings College Wimbledon and Roedean. A key feature is the close subject-speciﬁc link between LAE and each of these schools; for example, between the Maths teachers at LAE and at Highgate School. And LAE continues to grow new partnerships with more independent schools, with Westminster School and James Allen’s Girls School recently developing links.

5. And the list of cross-sector involvement is almost endless. Each one of the independent schools mentioned above could describe numerous partnerships with local state schools. Take the Southwark Schools’ Learning Partnership (SSLP), for example. This arose from a DfE London Challenge project for cross-sector working aimed at raising levels of students’ engagement and achievements and providing professional development for staff. It was set up in October 2003 by its two Directors, Dr Irene Bishop CBE, Head of St Saviour’s & St Olave’s CE School and Mrs Marion Gibbs CBE, Head of James Allen’s Girls’ School. And it involved nine original schools, three independent (Alleyn’s, Dulwich College and James Allen’s Girls’) and six maintained (The Globe Academy, Harris Girls’ Academy, East Dulwich, Kingsdale, St Michael & All Angels Academy, St Saviour’s & St Olave’s CE School and Walworth Academy). The SSLP was formed with aims for staff and students from schools in both sectors to work together to develop innovative practice and to share and broaden their experience in order to improve teaching and learning in the SSLP schools, and to raise student achievement by enhancing students’ involvement in their own learning and by helping teachers to develop models of highly effective teaching.

6. Structural partnerships—that is, relationships between schools that are hard-wired into constitutional arrangements—have tended to focus recently on the sponsored academy model. But examples abound of other models where collaboration is deeply rooted across different institutions. The Livery Companies provide an interesting model. The Mercers’ Association of Schools and Colleges, for example, dates back to 1509 when St. Paul’s School was founded. The Mercers’ Company has progressed to build up a portfolio of schools in which it has a direct interest. Long-standing associations are through trusteeship, or the involvement of Mercers in founding a school or college (as with the St. Paul’s Schools, Colet Court, Abingdon, Collyers, Dauntseys, Peter Symonds). More recently, the Mercers were founding sponsors of new schools through the City Technology Colleges programme (Thomas Telford School), and Academies programme (Hammersmith, Madeley, Sandwell and Walsall Academies). Other members have joined the Association through their links with other aspects of the Company’s activities in London (Bute House, the Hall School, the Royal Ballet School, Holy Trinity & St. Silas and Culloden Primary Schools). The Company exercises its inﬂuence in the Association largely through governance, advisory work and networking (sharing best practice through school links, conferences, seminars and other activities for school governors, staff and students). The deliberately diverse group of 17 schools and colleges includes some of the country’s leading independent and maintained educational institutions. Some feature regularly among the best schools in their sectors in the national league tables; others have earned reputations for excellence in specialist ﬁelds; while others have demonstrated spectacular success in tackling underachievement and turning failure into success. At the last count, over 14,000 students attended schools and colleges in the group. 43 http://www.kingedwardsfoundation.co.uk/index.htm 44 http://www.guardian.co.uk/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/may/16/impact-teaching-schools cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w88 Education Committee: Evidence

7. The breadth and depth of involvement between the sectors is so great that it is hard not to resort to lists and case studies. Taking a more quantitative approach, ISC’s annual Census of independent schools gives the headline figures on school partnerships in 2013: — 1,126 ISC schools (93.2%) are involved in partnerships with state schools or the wider community, with the vast majority (997) reporting state school partnerships. — Types of partnerships that were reported included the following: — Pupils from state schools joining lessons or other educational events. — Sharing knowledge, skills, expertise and experience with state schools. — Seconding teaching staff to state schools. — Working with state schools on projects to improve the quality of teaching and learning for pupils. — Supporting state schools to help them prepare A-level students for entry to higher education. — Work with schools overseas sharing knowledge, skills and expertise and/or arranging cultural exchange visits. — Pupils from state schools using independent school facilities (sports, music, arts, drama). — Hosting joint events and performances with state schools. — Allowing pupils from state schools to use sporting facilities. — Working with public authorities to develop local or national educational provision. 8. Statistics alone do not of course do justice to the huge range of activities carried out locally. Whether it’s hosting joint lessons with local schools; or seconding staff to neighbouring schools; or holding open sports’ coaching sessions; or providing work experience for disengaged 14–16 year olds; or lending minibuses to local Scout groups; or giving careers’ advice to 18 year olds and preparing them for A-levels; or running collaborative workshops for everything from creative writing and singing to science experiments; or supporting CCF groups in local academies: the list is endless, and it’s one that independent schools subscribe to each year. Without headlines, the sector gets on with fruitful effective engagement every day of the year. 9. Credit must go to the Independent/State School Partnership (ISSP) scheme for delivering enormous but largely unsung benefits to huge numbers of pupils across state and independent schools. The ISSP scheme was first announced by the then Minister of State for Education, Stephen Byers, at the Girls’ Schools Association Conference in November 1997. Stressing the “vital role” of the independent sector within the education system and the government’s commitment to fostering closer links between the state and private sector, he explained the scheme’s double purpose: to bridge “the public/private divide [which] diminishes the whole education system” and to involve independent schools “in achieving our standards agenda” by enabling schools from the two sectors to work together in partnership on specific projects. 10. In January 1998, all schools in England were invited to apply for £600,000 of funding for school-based pilot partnerships between state and independent schools. Applicant partnerships were required to submit a detailed description of their proposed project and arrangements for monitoring and evaluating it, together with a financial plan. 294 applications were considered against five selection criteria to test the extent to which partnerships and projects matched the overarching aim of the scheme: “to promote collaborative working by maintained and independent schools in partnership to raise standards in education.” The selection criteria were encapsulated in the following questions—which are worth repeating now as they continue to be relevant to any partnership arrangement: — Is it a genuine partnership, involving at least one independent and one maintained school, from which both partners can gain significantly, with pupils and teachers working together towards a mutual goal? — Is it a demonstration project, a workable example of how the two sectors can work together, capable, whether innovative or an extension of good practice, of being replicated anywhere in the country? — Will it engender further links, having the potential for expansion and involvement of other schools and organisations? — Will it add benefit to pupils locally, enriching educational opportunities for pupils, teachers and the wider community? — Does it provide good value for money, offering an excellent return, in the form of increased educational opportunities, on the investment made? 11. 47 pilot projects were selected for funding in 1998–99. And over the next nine years more than 330 projects, involving around 1,400 schools, received funding of around £10 million. Each grant application round was oversubscribed. Non-government funding came from, amongst others, The Sutton Trust and Sir John Beckwith, Chairman of Youth Sport Trust. The last bidding round covered the period 2007 to 2011. 23 projects cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w89

in total were funded with over £4 million, with a speciﬁc focus on gifted and talented children, increasing university application from children from disadvantaged backgrounds and raising attainment and participation in maths, science and/or languages.

12. There have been numerous external evaluations of the ISSP scheme or elements of it:

— University of Leeds, School of Education (May 1999 and March 2001).45

— Ofsted report: Providing for Gifted and Talented pupils (December 2001).46

— Institute of Youth Sport, Loughborough University (November 2002).

— NCSL report: Building Bridges: A study of independent-state school partnerships (Summer 2004).47

— Ofsted report: Independent/state school partnerships (March 2005).48

13. Common themes to emerge from these evaluations include: the importance of funding as part of the framework for collaboration; the high quality projects selected as a result of the rigorous nature of the application, monitoring and evaluation procedures; the value for money represented by individual partnerships; the effectiveness of the partnerships in promoting good practice, sharing expertise and extending provision among the partners; and benefits to pupils including improved time management, increased self-confidence, development of transferable skills, raised awareness of specific career opportunities, better access to facilities and resources and evidence of improved achievement and attitude. The Committee’s attention is particularly drawn to these reports as they provide helpful indicators of the elements of successful partnerships.

14. In December 2010 the Schools Minister wrote to the ISSP chairman to express support for the ideals of ISSPs which had, in the Government’s view, “made a signiﬁcant contribution to bridging the gap between maintained and independent sector”. Funding, however, was withdrawn and no new schemes have been funded since 2010. Whilst some ISSPs are secure enough to continue it is inevitable that many of these schemes will fade away.49

15. It is indeed regrettable that funding has been cut for these worthwhile initiatives, particularly as the appetite for projects remains undiminished. The focus more recently has been the sponsorship by independent schools of academies. There are numerous examples of independent schools taking up this challenge—in the last month alone Eton and Westminster have announced new sponsorship arrangements—but there is a vocal element decrying the apparent reluctance of the independent sector to engage. Not only does this fly in the face of the evidence but, of greater concern, it serves to diminish the real benefits delivered, and capable of being delivered, through cross-sector partnerships. So Lord Adonis who, as Schools Minister in 2008, announced “a new era for independent/state schools partnerships [which] have been a success to date, helping provide thousands of children with academic and pastoral opportunities” and reaffirmed that “these partnerships are part of the wider vision” to equip highly educated people to lead the country in the fields of science, maths and languages, dismissed these same partnerships in 2012 as “ad hoc and pretty minor”.50 The change of heart appears driven solely by a need to play down partnerships in favour of a single preferred model of engagement, that of sponsored academy.

16. As the recent Academies Commission report emphasised, school-to-school collaboration is, alongside excellent teaching, a key strand in raising standards. The Commission expressed its concerns about the apparent tension brought about by the newly-minted independence of the state academies clashing with the desire to ensure that they remain effective partners in a national school system. Independent schools, the charitable foundations and institutions from which they emanate, and the partnerships they support, demonstrate that competition and collaboration need not be at odds. October 2013

45 http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002223.htm 46 http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/providing-for-gifted-and-talented-children 47 http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5306/1/media-7b0-b4-building-bridges.pdf 48 http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/independentstate-school-partnerships 49 See, for example, the Oxfordshire ISSP (http://oissp.org/): “OISSP has been the largest and longest running secondary school partnership in the country, operating since 1997. Over the past ﬁve years, the partnership has focussed on improving science teaching, enrichment and uptake in Oxfordshire and this has been facilitated by a close link with the schools team at Science Oxford. Government funding for partnership models like OISSP has now ceased, so from April 2012 Science Oxford took on the responsibility for moving the OISSP science legacy forwards.” 50 2008 quotes taken from DCSF press release announcing last ISSP funding round; 2012 quotes taken from TES, 2 November 2012 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w90 Education Committee: Evidence

Written evidence submitted by the National Governors Association 1. Introduction 1.1 The National Governors’ Association51 exists to improve the well-being of children and young people by promoting high standards in all our schools, and improving the effectiveness of their governing bodies. The NGA is the only independent body representing school governors at national level across England. We support governing bodies in both local authority maintained schools and academies. 1.2 Many schools will have a variety of partnerships both informal and formal covering a range of different functions. In some cases these arrangements will have existed for many years and in other cases (eg a stronger school supporting a weaker school, local authority federations or multi-academy trusts) may be more recent and formal. 1.3 For partnerships to be effective and successful, whether they are formal or informal, there needs to be a shared understanding of the purpose and goals of the partnership, agreement about the actions to be taken and how success will be evaluated and measured and effective accountability mechanisms in place. Lack of clarity, common purpose and trust between key players is likely to prevent success. With some informal partnerships, the lack of appropriate accountability mechanisms can be a disadvantage and a barrier to success. In some of the more formal partnerships, initial failure to agree a shared ethos and objectives is likely to lead to failure. 1.4 The National College for Teaching and Leadership (the National College) has documented that school to school support has beneﬁts for both schools. http://www.education.gov.uk/nationalcollege/docinfo?id=175758&ﬁlename=system-leadership-does- school-to-school-support-close-the-gap.pdf

2. The differing forms of school partnership and cooperation, and whether they have particular advantages and disadvantages 2.1 The NGA is particularly concerned with governance and therefore in terms of this enquiry: — the role of school governors in partnership; and — the governance of partnerships, and in particular joint governance of a group of schools (usually known as a federation or multi-academy trust). 2.2 Given that governors are volunteers with a limited amount of time to commit, it has been challenging to develop networks and thus, informal and formal partnerships, of governors. When cluster arrangements were formed between schools, professional staff would meet, but governors were often left out of the equation. This is beginning to change in some places. 2.3 Governors may have shared good practice through completely separate mechanisms, usually a local governors’ association, but this is not the same as two or more governing bodies working together. There are local governors’ associations in about half of local authority areas, and their aims will largely mirror those of the NGA at local level ie to support governors in their aim of improving schools. Almost all of those associations are members of NGA, but are set up completely separately. They vary considerably in their level of activities and their reach. Although local governors’ associations or networks can be an important mechanism for spreading effective governance practice, it is a precarious model of partnership, relying on additional volunteer time. NGA can provide the committee with more information should this be of interest. 2.4 There are a number of legal mechanisms to formalise the governance of partnerships between schools: — the collaboration regulations, — local authority maintained school federations, — foundation schools with an umbrella trust, — co-operative school trusts (both LA maintained and academy), and — multi-academy trust or umbrella academy trust. 2.5 The collaboration regulations allow two or more governing bodies to collaborate in relation to any of the functions of the governing body. This could be in relation to stafﬁng, particularly in relation to panel hearings. It can be particularly, useful in small schools where there is a greater likelihood that governors will have personal knowledge of individual members of staff and, therefore would be “tainted” in relation to sitting on any disciplinary or grievance panels. Formal collaborative arrangements enable governors from the collaborating school to sit on the panel. It can also be used to enable more effective governing bodies to support less effective governing bodies with their challenge function. For example, a joint curriculum/standards committee could be formed which would mean that the professional leadership of both schools could be held properly to account and the governors of the stronger school could model good practice to the weaker school. This arrangement may lead to a federation or multi-academy trust being formed. 51 NGA is a charity (number 1070331) and a company (number 354029). Our income is primarily from membership fees followed by publication sales. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w91

2.6 The NGA is not aware of any formal research which has looked at the advantages or disadvantages of the use of the collaboration regulations specifically and there is no central record of how many governing bodies have used these regulations. 2.7 Local authority maintained federations have a single governing body which governs, and is accountable for, two or more schools. The word “partnership” does not quite do the arrangement justice; it is a formal structure for governing and leading more than one school. The regulations enabling federations have been in place for approximately ten years. Federations come in a number of shapes and sizes, in their simplest form, two schools joined by one governing body, but in other cases secondaries and primaries, faith and non- faith joined together under one governing body. Federation, unless required as part of a formal local intervention for a school eligible for intervention is a governing body decision. 2.8 The Ofsted report Leadership of more than one school looked at the provision and outcomes for pupils in federated schools where professional leadership was also shared. It also looked at how schools had arrived at the decision to federate. The inspectors visited 29 federations which covered 61 schools and looked at questionnaires from 111. It found three main reasons for federation: a stronger school supporting a weaker school, small schools coming together to improve capacity and avoid closure and cross-phase federations designed to improve the overall quality of education. Ofsted found that all the federated schools demonstrated improved provision and outcomes (to varying degrees) and least some of this improvement could be attributed to the act of federating. Ofsted found a variety of professional leadership models, but did not find one model was better than the others. In particular, Ofsted noted that governance in weaker schools improved following federation. 2.9 The NGA’s own current small scale research is looking specifically at why governing bodies’ consider federation, the barriers and challenges they have faced and key lessons from their experiences. The research involved telephone and face to face interviews with governing bodies, headteachers and local authority representatives. It includes some examples where collaboration did not lead to a federation. The interim findings of the NGA’s research indicate that the most successful federations are those which were considered and planned over time, involving collaboration and less formal arrangements in the first instance. These were often the first step to over-coming barriers, particularly concerns about loss of identity (expressed by parents, staff and governors) and loss of control. 2.10 This research highlights the need for full and frank discussions at an early stage, both to ensure all have shared goals, but also to carry out the “due diligence” process that any two companies merging would be required to undertake. In several cases where federation had been unsuccessful, the failure was a result of either a lack of common goals or lack of proper information. Eg in one case a weaker school federated with a strong school—the stronger school assumed that as the federation was effective for both it would continue, but the weaker school once it had improved was keen to return to being a standalone entity—a lack of shared long term planning and strategic goals. In another case, a newly formed federation failed because following a poor Ofsted inspection, the weaker school was converted into a sponsored academy—the other school in the partnership had been unaware how weak its federation partner was—demonstrating the need for thorough interrogation of each other’s data. 2.11 Participants in the NGA research were clear that honesty about motives for federation was essential. This mirrors the literature about partnerships in other sectors—that trust, honesty and clarity—are key to success. Good communication is absolutely essential. Although evidence from both Ofsted and NGA shows that federation does bring improvements in curricula offers and outcomes for children, financial constraints and the avoidance of closure, or the need to recruit a new headteacher, may be the drivers. 2.12 The NGA research confirmed Ofsted’s conclusions that standards rose in schools that federated successfully. Improved teaching and learning was reported to be a major benefit, largely achieved because federation allows schools greater flexibility with staffing, such as being able to distribute staff across schools, whether it be for cover or to share specialist skills. Federation when properly thought out brings a wider curriculum offer, better outcomes for pupil and more opportunities for staff development. For further information, see the attached forthcoming article for Governing Matters. 2.13 Multi-academy trusts (MATs) are in effect “federations” for academies and indeed some MATs have federation in their title, sometimes when they were local authority federated schools before conversion. MATs are even much more varied in their governance structures than local authority federated schools. The overarching trust is the accountable body for all the schools, and in almost all cases each individual academy will have a local board, but the powers and functions of these local boards vary widely. In some cases, the local board is responsible for staffing, finance as well as holding the professional leadership to account for the standard of education. In other cases the central trust body retains the finance and staffing functions and the local body is responsible for standards and pastoral issues, or may only have an advisory role. As MATs grow in size it may be that more functions will need to be delegated to local, or regional groupings as it will not be possible to govern effectively from the centre. 2.14 Governance in general, but specifically of academies (standalone and MATs) has been under consideration recently. There has been no serious research, partly because the system is still relatively new, of how effective the various models of governance are. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w92 Education Committee: Evidence

3. How highly performing schools could better be encouraged to cooperate with others 3.1 The National College has encouraged and developed a host of “system leaders”, National Leaders of Education, Local Leaders of Education, Specialist Leaders of Education and more recently National Leaders of Governance (NLG). All these leaders of education come from high-performing schools and are spreading their experience and expertise across the system. The work carried out by the National College and others show that when a strong school supports a weaker school, both schools benefit. Local authorities have often played a key role in encouraging and facilitating cooperation, in a variety of forms, and some continue to do that. 3.2 We understand that the governance of teaching school alliances is now being researched by the National College. Alliances have been given the freedom to devise their own governance arrangements, but this has led to some conflicts—and potential conflicts—between the governance arrangements of the lead schools and the alliances, in which governors were not always involved. In the early days of the alliances, this was raised as an issue (we attach an article) and has not entirely been resolved. This is an example where allowing complete freedom might have led some alliances to develop potentially unsustainable or unworkable structures.

4. Whether schools have sufficient incentives to form meaningful and lasting relationships with other schools 4.1 There are currently no performance measures which recognise the work schools do to support others. As long as performance measures and tables focus on the standards of individual schools, professional school leaders will give this over-riding priority. Similarly governing bodies/boards of trustees responsible for only one school/academy will rightly concentrate on the standards of the school for which they are accountable. 4.2 It is also true that incentives come in many different forms and many school leaders seek to work with and support schools in challenging circumstances because they genuinely want to improve the standard of education in the local community—they need no other incentive. What they do need is the flexibility and time to be able to carry out this role effectively. 4.3 There are a significant number of small and very small primary schools. In many cases it is not an effective structure for these schools to have individual headteacher and governing bodies—in the very smallest schools, governors out number staff. This not sensible. The headteacher of a small school has all the overarching responsibilities that the headteacher of a large school has, but in most cases also has a significant teaching workload. The only “incentive” for these schools to come together has been necessity—often when one is facing the retirement of a headteacher and it becomes apparent that recruitment is going to be difficult. Lack of a headteacher, potential closure and financial hardship are all drivers for schools to seek closer working relationships, but they cannot be called “incentives”. 4.4 While acknowledging that Government policy is to encourage all schools to adopt academy status, there needs to be recognition that many primary schools, particularly, but not exclusively small primary schools are a long way from that point. Although the Department for Education has been offering grants for primary schools to come together in groups to consider academisation, many of these schools are not at the stage of considering partnership working, let alone becoming academy trusts with the additional responsibilities that entails. 4.5 The NGA thinks these schools should be offered financial incentives to use the collaboration regulations and/or form federations in the first instance.

5. If and how the potential tension between school partnership and cooperation, and school choice and competition can be resolved 5.1 There is of course competition in the system and in any local area parents will say “I would like to be able to send my child there”. In reality there is a ﬁnite number of school places; although in theory good schools can expand, some do not wish to because they think that size is linked to success and that is they grow too big, the ethos might be affected and effectiveness could deteriorate. In addition, other schools do not have room to expand. Parents, of course, would like the “best” school for their child, but what they want is at least a good school for their child. 5.2 Not all partnerships will involve competition—secondaries working with their feeder primaries will generally bring beneﬁts without engendering competition.

6. Whether converter academies’ requirements to support other schools, included in their funding agreements, are sufﬁcient and are effectively policed 6.1. The NGA is not aware of what monitoring mechanisms the Education Funding Agency employs in this regards. At the point of conversion, there is often very little discussion about this support, either within the governing body or with the DfE. Sometimes the school being offered support is only marginally involved. From anecdotal experience the requirement feels to be largely cosmetic. Often the arrangement is a continuation of an existing arrangement, which may be strong and effective, but in other cases it is one which is devised for the application and we are not aware of whether those new arrangements are sustained and effective. Our experience was reﬂected in the recent Academies Commission report. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w93

7. Whether academies sponsored by another school receive sufﬁcient support from their sponsor 7.1 Given the range of sponsors this varies enormously. Even within sponsor chains some schools may feel they have not received enough support, whereas others will be extremely happy with the level of support. Most local authorities have a range of maintained schools, from outstanding to inadequate whereas one of the challenges for sponsors is that the vast majority of the schools they take on are in challenging circumstances (albeit that some have been formally be judged as inadequate whereas others are only at risk of being declared to require improvement for a second time). Consequently it is not surprising that some academy chains which were very effective with nine or 10 academies feel the strain once they pass 20 or 30. Nearly all the bigger chains have at least one academy under their governance that has been declared inadequate by Ofsted. 7.2 Governance arrangements are critical in these circumstances, particularly when the “centre” may be several counties away from some of its academies. Research into the governance structures of academies would be useful—how effective and accountable are local governing bodies if they are in fact advisory bodies with no authority to take decisions. Does this impact on how robust the challenge function is carried out? The NGA suggests consideration needs to be given to how many schools can effectively come within one governance structure.

8. Whether school partnerships drive effective school improvement 8.1 The NGA’s evidence from its research into federations, mirrored by Ofsted’s ﬁndings and those of the National College suggest that partnerships do drive improvement. But, there needs to be clear vision, shared goals and robust accountability mechanisms.

9. Whether there are any additional upsides or downsides for highly performing schools supporting others through partnerships 9.1 Parents and governors can sometimes worry that there will be a downside to highly performing schools supporting others through partnerships. Evidence to the contrary needs to be well-marshalled and explained in a convincing fashion. National Governors Association 36 Great Charles Street Birmingham B3 3 JY 17 May 2013 [email protected] [email protected]

ToFederate or not toFederate? Last year, the NGA embarked upon a research project about the experiences of schools that have pursued federation, successfully or unsuccessfully. This research forms part of the “Structural Reform Research Programme” funded by the British Educational Leadership, Management and Administration Society (BELMAS). The aims of the NGA’s research have been to ﬁnd out why governing bodies’ consider federation (both as maintained schools and academies), the challenges they have faced and key lessons from their experiences. Over the past few months, telephone interviews have been conducted with 15 schools/federations, six of which were then visited for face-to-face interviews with governors, headteachers and local authority representatives.

Collaborations and partnerships Although the option to federate has existed for just over ten years, a number of participants commented that they had felt like they were entering virgin territory, with some being the first in their area to consider federation. Some relished the opportunity to break new ground; others found their role as pioneers disconcerting. It is unsurprising that several schools decided to dip their toes in the water by forming less formal collaborations or partnerships—retaining separate governing bodies—before pursuing federation. In the vast majority of cases, schools were sufficiently convinced of the benefits to take the plunge and formally federate. The initial phase of collaboration was often instrumental to the success of the federation, for a number of reasons. Many of the concerns and challenges from parents, staff, and governors themselves were overcome during the collaboration phase. Stepping into the unknown can be scary, so having tangible evidence of the benefits can be the key to getting everyone on board. One chair of governors described his experiences of this: “The difficulties were around the decision to initiate the partnership in the first place. That’s where we had the most heated discussions. Two years later everyone was like ‘Yes this is working really well; it would be great for us to carry on.’ That’s much more straightforward.” This preliminary stage also gives governors across the partnership, in particular chairs, the opportunity to begin building relationships. This does not necessarily have to be restricted to formal meetings. For example, one participant described how the chairs of partner schools frequently met informally to share ideas, which played an important part in developing the collaboration. Furthermore, seeing their chairs getting on encouraged cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w94 Education Committee: Evidence

the other governors to build positive relationships with one another. Another participant, when comparing the formal process of federation with informal collaboration, commented: “I think the informal level was really the important level for us….a great deal of work was done off the record”. His colleague went on to describe how important this informal level was in communicating to parents how important federating was to their school’s future, even before partners had officially been chosen. Many schools in the research benefitted from informal collaboration, which begs the question: why federate? In answer, participants spoke of benefits to the governing body. Several governing bodies cited greater strategic flexibility in terms of staffing to be a particular plus. For example, the opportunity to develop staff’s leadership skills can be hugely beneficial in succession planning. One participant described how appointing extra staff to the senior leadership team has resulted in the federation now having three members of staff capable of taking on headship. Where an executive headteacher is responsible for multiple schools, federation can also streamline governing body operations, as described by the clerk of a successful federation: “I was doing pretty much the same at each meeting, but for the different schools. So I could see the double workload for the head. I could see the double workload for the chairs, for the clerk.” Federation was therefore the obvious solution.

Challenges and barriers As there was such variety between the participating federations, many of the challenges faced were unique to individual schools. For example, one federation consisting of a special school and primary school was stopped in its tracks after the primary school fell victim to forced academisation. The special school had been unaware of the primary’s failings before federating, highlighting the importance of undergoing a thorough due diligence process. Another governing body faced opposition from a small group of staff, whose complaints were based on historical issues unrelated to the imminent federation. In this case, the headteacher took HR advice from the local authority and the federation was put in place. Experiencing the benefits of the federation has quietened the discordant voices. Some barriers, however, were more common. In numerous cases there was opposition from stakeholders, sometimes parents and sometimes staff, often voicing valid concerns about federation. As discussed above, collaboration could be an effective way of showing those concerned the potential benefits of federation. Communication is also essential in dealing with concerns, and shouldn’t be left to formal consultation. Unsurprisingly, keeping lines of communication open was found to be crucial all the way through the process, including once the federation is up and running. One participant experienced difficulties when admin staff voiced concerns over the restructuring of their roles. The same staff expressed further concerns several months into the federation, this time about the consequences of moving to a single budget. Following the governing body meeting finalising the budget arrangements, the participant phoned each member of staff personally to make sure they knew what was happening. It was also seen to be important to be honest about why you want to federate. As one participant put it: “Don’t say it’s not about finance, it’s all about improving the curriculum when it isn’t. Parents are not stupid and they need to be told the bottom line.” This school considered federation when it realised it could not afford to replace their headteacher if she retired. Since federating it has experienced many benefits in terms of school improvement, but initially the governing body was very honest about the situation: federation or closure. This honesty was vital in persuading parents that federation was the only option. Good communication is also needed between federating governing bodies. Governors are often concerned that they’re handing “their school over to a group of strangers”, which can lead to a “them and us” mentality. Making an effort to help colleagues get to know one another, and the other school, can help ensure a smooth transition. One chair of a federation governing body put forward a simple solution: “It’s really easy if you have conspiracy theories or fantasies around ‘that school wants to take us over and make us like their school’. One of the easiest ways to dispel some of those things is just having people together in the same room and talking.” This view was seconded by another participant, who said “I think as governors we haven’t seen any downsides as opposed to challenges, because we took the time to get to know each other”.

Key Lessons This research has shown that there is no one route to or set model for federation—there are a vast range of combinations of school size, phase, type and location. However, in all 15 cases schools and governing bodies benefitted from the federation process, even where it was ultimately unsuccessful. In schools that have federated successfully, standards have risen across the board. Improved teaching and learning was reported to be a major benefit, largely achieved because federation allows schools greater flexibility with staffing, such as being able to distribute staff across schools, whether it be for cover or to share specialist skills. Federations also offer a unique set of challenges, allowing them to attract more ambitious applicants when recruiting, as well as retain their best existing teachers. Before these benefits can be reaped, schools must first navigate through the potentially daunting process of becoming a federation. There is some guidance available on how to do this, such as NGA’s Federation Q&A. One participant offered the following advice: “Go through the process diligently, so that consultation occurs, cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w95

due diligence occurs and that everybody is happy at every stage.” The importance of doing this well is demonstrated by the earlier example of the failed special school and primary school federation. Perhaps the most important aspect of this advice is ensuring that “everybody is happy at every stage”. Such a big change can be unsettling, and it must be managed sensitively. Part of this is staying focussed on what you as a governing body want to achieve from federation and frequently returning to this, asking “Is this still right for us?” Also keep in mind that, although you can learn from the experiences of other schools, you can’t simply copy what they’ve done. As one headteacher said: “Look at each case on its own merit. I don’t think you can just pick a model up and put it down.”

Federation can offer signiﬁcant beneﬁts, but making it work requires governing bodies to ask challenging questions, really know their schools, and build strong relationships; all of which are essential components of any effective governing body. October 2013

Written evidence submitted by Devon County Council

Devon County Council, a largely rural local authority has a strong history and track record in supporting schools to work collaboratively.

1. The differing forms of school partnership and cooperation and whether they have particular advantages and disadvantages

Devon has (at April 2013) 310 maintained schools. 34% of these schools are either already in a (hard) federation (89 schools), sharing leadership (six schools), or are exploring such formal collaborations (10 schools). Of the 52 schools in Devon who have converted to academy status, 34 of these (65%) are in multi- academy trusts. 33 of Devon’s maintained schools have, so far, formed 10 cooperative trusts, with 20 more schools forming three further trusts during the next three months. Most of the cooperative trusts have been set up loosely based within long established Local Learning Community (LLC) partnerships, of which there are 32 in Devon. Each LLC is based upon a geographical area secondary school (or schools), together with its feeder primary schools. Academies continue to participate in their LLC partnerships which acts as a universal framework for locality based partnership.

Advantages and Disadvantages

We have seen many advantages of schools informally working together through Local Learning Communities and these groupings give a strong foundation and platform for further collaboration, but the real and sustainable advantages come through the formalisation (“hardwiring”) of partnership working. Devon has promoted the use of the federation regulations to bring schools together (both community and church schools), under a single strategic and focussed governing body. This delivers a real “step change” in sharing responsibility for student outcomes and best use of resources. We have supported and brokered partnerships encouraging governing bodies as key decision makers to ﬁnd local solutions and agree partnerships which will deliver tangible beneﬁts for children across their communities. The fact that schools can also “de-federate” at a later date is also very attractive in this model, as whilst none of our schools has entered into federation lightly, or without appropriate consultation, there is also the knowledge that if circumstances change in the future, a school can “de-federate”, or the federation can dissolve and a different partnership established. Some federations have used this formal partnership model to move to a multi academy status.

The Cooperative Trust model has also proved very popular in Devon with governing bodies moving to establish a shared trust to deliver beneﬁts across a community of schools. The trusts have focussed on developing school improvement capacity and brought in additional partners with new expertise, binding the schools together at Trust level but allowing them to retain their individual governing bodies.

Challenges to these formalised models include the occasional perception that some schools are predatory or headteachers are “empire builders” and a threat to the autonomy of other schools. This can make other schools wary of getting into a formalised arrangement. Whereas some schools can find it more difficult to find a willing partner particularly if they bring financial risks to the partnership.

Whilst there is a strong school improvement element in most formal partnerships many are based on historic alliances and established good relationships between lead professionals. Some have been brought together by local authority ofﬁcers to provide school to school support to accelerate improvement through strong and proven executive headteachers leading across schools.

The Local Authority’s brokerage role is key and ensures that these partnerships are robust and sustainable. We have found that geographical proximity between schools is not essential for good school improvement partnerships. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w96 Education Committee: Evidence

1.1 Federations

Devon’s ﬁrst (hard) federation was established in September 2006 between two VC C of E primary schools. Devon now has 34 (hard) federations involving 89 schools, all but two of those schools are primary schools. A ﬁrm advantage of a hard federation is the single governing body which ensured a greater focus on strategic decision making, and a more effective use of available resources by stripping out unnecessary duplication across schools. An increasing number of Devon’s federations are now also operating with a single budget which streamlines budget monitoring for governors. Federation continues to be the partnership model of choice for primary schools in Devon regardless of their size and location.

1.2 Ofsted

Evidence has built during the last ﬁve years as to the impact of federation on school improvement and outcomes for children.

Of the ﬁve schools in Devon judged “outstanding” by Ofsted between September 2012 and March 2013, four were in a federated arrangement. Clearly this is largely down to the quality of leadership, with our strong system leaders driving improvement across federations.

2. How highly performing schools could better be encouraged to cooperate with others

This relies on changing the mind sets and attitudes of individual leaders and governors, so more are naturally drawn to a challenge and look beyond their own school. Devon has a range of positive stories to tell now and powerful advocates with “hands on” experience. This is already making a difference to how leading across a group of schools is perceived, with new leadership roles emerging such as site based Heads of Teaching & Learning working under an experienced Headteacher in an executive role. DCC aims to work alongside governors, not try to dictate solutions, as successful leadership of one school does not automatically guarantee success across a group of schools. Devon Schools’ Forum allocates a small funding grant (£5k) to all federations to support their early partnership development.

3. Whether schools have sufﬁcient incentive to form meaningful and lasting relationships with other schools

It is the governing body who hold school partnerships together. The initial decision is taken very seriously, so therefore the incentive is to sustain the partnership and maintain the beneﬁts sharing resources and expertise is key. This provides an enhanced experience for the children on roll. Governing bodies must enter into these partnerships committed to making them work. DCC provides brokerage and facilitation with model documentation which clariﬁes systems and partnership infrastructures.

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

There is clear evidence of the beneﬁts schools working in partnership can bring to children. These need to be shared more widely as competition is not the only way to raise the performance of schools. Partnership working should not be seen as a threat to the staff in schools who may fear losing their jobs, or to the communities who may see it as one step closer to “dumbing down” the educational offer or even closure. Taking on ﬁnancial liabilities and risks are more likely to deter strong schools from partnering other schools, rather than competition or the need to address low standards.

Outstanding schools should continue to be required to share their expertise across schools to retain their status. This needs to go beyond the teaching school programme.

5. Whether converter academies requirements to support other schools, include in their funding agreements, are sufﬁcient and are effectively policed

No local evidence but our experience suggests not. Many converting academies paid lip-service to this requirement.

6. Whether academies sponsored by another school receive sufﬁcient support from their sponsor

Only one established sponsor in Devon but our experience of potential sponsors has shown that some have little experience of school improvement and weak internal capacity.

7. Whether school partnerships drive effective school improvement

Most deﬁnitely but it is the quality of leadership, not the structure, that makes the real difference. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w97

8. Whether there are any additional upsides or downsides for highly performing schools supporting others through partnerships Upside: the “on the job” development of high quality leaders through site based “Heads of Teaching and Learning” working under an experienced Executive Headteacher. This is the best possible preparation for headship with excellent cross-fertilisation of leadership expertise across the federation leadership team. Downside: retaining the host school’s own high performance if energies and focus are elsewhere. Changes in strategic leadership without succession planning. October 2013

Written evidence submitted by The Dover Federation for the Arts Multi Academy Trust and The Duke of York’s Royal Military School 1. Introduction 1.1 The principle of using strong schools to support others in raising standards is not new. Collaboration between schools has been widely and actively encouraged by central government and most local authorities for the best part of the last 15 years, during which time a wide diversity of models has been established with varying degrees of success. 1.2 The proposition that schools can potentially learn from each other and derive mutual benefit from a degree of collaboration is surely axiomatic. However it is at the specific and not the abstract level that the nature of the collaboration and potential benefits to be derived needs closer examination and more critical scrutiny. Schools do not operate in isolation; they operate within the context of specific communities with all the attendant socio economic and educational challenges posed by the profile of the natural catchment area. The proposition that any two or more schools could potentially derive mutual benefit from collaboration is surely flawed. Successful partnerships will emerge when there are natural synergies, mutual goodwill and enthusiasm and visionary leadership with the commitment capacity and drive to succeed. 1.3 There is also a danger of stereotyping schools as successful or unsuccessful and making such judgements on the basis of narrowly defined attainment criteria. Again, contextualisation is important. Just as it is important to evaluate the true strengths and weaknesses of every school across a range of criteria taking into account enrichment activity and the tangible but not always easy to measure benefits to be derived from non- academic activity. 1.4 That is in no way to argue against the need for minimum levels of academic achievement to be prescribed. However, effective evaluation, just like effective teaching requires differentiation, contextualisation and recognising individual potential. The one size fits all approach is a blunt and inadequate instrument for evaluating the achievement of schools and is equally invalid when considering optimum models for inter- school collaboration. 1.5 Government policy over the last 3 years has in some areas generated a herd-like mentality. Within any given locality primary schools in particular have found a new will to group together in some form of loose collaboration. In many instances they have done so not because they perceive the prospect of deriving any hard-edged educational benefit but because other schools are doing so and they don’t want to be left out. The herd mentality has taken a grip in those localities where there has been significant intervention by the Department for Education encouraging and sometimes directing the take-over of schools which are struggling academically by established academy chains. Some of these chains operate a business model which has very little to do with making existing schools better. Diversity is sacrificed on the altar of a corporate template. This reduces diversity, restricts flexibility and relies on a relentless and very narrow focus on the core subjects of English, Maths and Science to the exclusion of all others. Those subjects and activities which demonstrate the potential to build character and resilience but do nothing to elevate participating schools within the narrow confines of the all-important league tables become increasingly vulnerable within this context. Nevertheless whatever ones starting point and philosophical underpinning the proof of the pudding is in the eating. What is the evidence to support the benefits of particular models of collaboration and partnership? 1.6 The following case study is based on a real, living example of partnership and collaboration between schools. It provides incontrovertible evidence what when the partnership involves the right mix of schools and the right leadership school partnerships can add up to more than the sum of their individual parts and achieve success recognisable to all.

2. The Dover Federation for the Arts (DFA) 2.1 The DFA is a multi-academy trust consisting of four schools: Astor College an 11–18 mixed secondary school; White Cliffs Primary College for the Arts; Shatterlocks Infant and Nursery School; Barton Junior School. All schools are in or near Dover town centre and serve communities with a high degree of socio- economic challenge. Until seven years ago all schools were completely independent of each other, under cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w98 Education Committee: Evidence

Local Authority control and with no form of collaboration or association either with each other or with other schools locally. 2.2 Astor College is one of two non-selective secondary schools in a town also served by two single sex grammar schools and a Roman Catholic comprehensive school. Within Dover town 40% of year 7 students are in selective schools, thereby significantly increasing the challenges faced by the non-selective schools in achieving the government floor targets, although Astor has met or exceeded floor targets in each of the last three years. 2.3 In 2006, St Radigunds Primary School in Dover was identified as the worst performing primary school in the country with shocking underachievement, a falling roll and a dismal future. The local authority consulted publicly on closing the school but decided not to, on the grounds of community cohesion. The concept of federation at that time had not gained a great deal of traction, certainly in Kent. However, there were a number of critical synergies between Astor and St Radigunds which raised the genuine prospect of being able to turn around St Radigunds with support from Astor College. The synergies were: — Both schools served the same community and were in close proximity. — St Radigunds was a feeder school to Astor. — Astor was a specialist arts college and had already achieved tangible success by using the arts as catalyst for student and community engagement. Why not use the same strategy at St Radigunds? — Astor College was well placed to offer extensive use of specialist facilities to primary school students including especially science, music and the arts. 2.4 In addition to the above it was clear that robust and decisive action was needed to address the rock bottom expectations of students and staff alike, to motivate students and raise their self-esteem and to engage with the community in a constructive way. Astor had strong leadership team at Astor and a governing body with vision and foresight. It was clear that there was much which could be done to improve the prospects of St Radigunds and future generations of young people from that community. Astor federated with St Radigunds. An action plan was put together identifying the need for short, medium and long-term actions and some radical but very necessary actions were taken with regards staffing. A key component of this was the appointment of a new Head of School, the previous headteacher having departed before the consultation on closure. 2.5 St Radigunds was immediately renamed White Cliffs Primary College for the Arts. In November 2010 White Cliffs was judged as an Outstanding School by Ofsted. 2.6 The DFA was further expanded when Shatterlocks Infant and Nursery School and Barton Junior School joined the federation. Again, these were feeder schools to Astor serving the same communities, in close proximity. Shatterlocks was not at that point in crisis, although Barton Junior was in Special Measures. Although Shatterlocks did not require the drastic action needed at St Radigunds and Barton, it also benefitted from being part of a vibrant active collaborative arrangement in which the Arts was used as a catalyst for engagement and change. The success of the DFA model speaks for itself. Within 12 months Barton came out of Special Measures and at its latest Ofsted in 2010 the school achieved a solid judgement of “Good in every category”. In January 2009 Shatterlocks was judged by Ofsted to be “Outstanding”. 2.7 The success of the DFA derives from the nature of the model and the selective way in which it has expanded. There are natural links and synergies between the schools providing building blocks for development. The Federation has very distinct identity based on the Arts specialism at Astor which has been used to great effect in all the federation schools. 2.8 Perhaps most important of all, the DFA has developed and maintained the concept of equal partners and shared leadership. Astor is the biggest school and to an extent the engine room of the federation but it does not control the primary schools. In June 2012, all the federation schools converted to academy status under the aegis of The Dover Federation for the Arts Multi Academy Trust. The leadership model includes a Chief Executive Officer of the Trust with a Principal (formerly Head of School pre-academy) for each of the four schools. The Federation Leadership Team (FLT) is complimented by a Director of Finance and a Director of Operations. Decisions are taken by the team. Each of the Principals shares responsibility within the FLT for the whole federation, not just their own school. This forms a bond of collegiality and support—No Head is Alone—as well as enhancing the leadership capacity of each school in turn. 2.9 Succession planning and nurturing talent is done at FLT level across all schools, maximising the opportunities for talented professionals to gain professional development and career advancement without leaving the federation. Staff turnover across the DFA is relatively low and there is considerable strength in depth at leadership level across all the schools. 2.10 The DFA is open to the prospect of further expansion and would wish to find opportunities to further development and implement its successful model of school improvement. However, it does not seek expansion for its own sake or the acquisition of real estate. The DFA has and will retain a highly successful model of school improvement which will be used selectively in a way which does not overstretch resources, establish conflicts of interests or create unwieldy and unmanageable structures. New staff are recruited who fit the model. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w99

The same selectivity will be exercised in considering the assimilation of more schools into the DFA, which is a sustainable model an ethos, an identity and an infrastructure which needs to be protected and nurtured in a sustainable way.

3. The Collaborative Partnership Agreement with The Duke of York’s Royal Military School 3.1 Over the past three years the strength and diversity of the DFA has been enhanced by the establishment of a collaborative partnership agreement with The Duke of York’s Royal Military School (DYRMS). This was originally set up as a collaboration between Astor College and DYRMS when the DYRMS converted to academy status from Ministry of Defence control in September 2010. The arrangement was intended to benefit Astor primarily given that DYRMS was a high performing school. However, as the partnership between DYRMS and DFA has been developed, there has been substantial mutual benefit for all five schools. Collaboration has moved to a higher level with the Chief Executive Officer of the DFA becoming Executive Principal at DYRMS, having previously been a governor. As such the Executive Principal is in a strong position to ensure that the collaboration which has been so beneficial over the last three years to all schools is protected and nurtured for the future. The benefits of collaboration have included support for Astor with Maths and English, reciprocal arrangements for peer review of systems and procedures, the development of extended “A” level opportunities for students; access to DFA primary schools to DYRMS’s outstanding swimming and sports facilities; joint training and development opportunities including support for DYRMS in preparation for Ofsted; opportunities for DYRMS students to travel abroad with DFA students to participate in major theatrical productions; extensive consultation, cooperation and discussion at FLT(DFA) and SLT (DYRMS) level; interchange of staff between the schools. Joint termly meetings of FLT and SLT are held to share experiences and discuss issues of mutual interest. 3.2 The DYRMS has provided assistance and support with the establishment of a military cadre at Astor College which provides a differentiated curriculum pathway for students embracing a ceremonial and military ethos. 3.3 The military ethos of the DOYRMS and the military cadre at Astor have also contributed to the focus on character and resilience at both schools. Mental toughness and determination are nurtured in order to underpin and facilitate the students’ desire to succeed. 3.4 In short the collaboration between the DYRMS and the schools within the DFA has helped to create a broad and diverse education community which continues to benefit staff and students on a number of different levels.

4. Conclusion 4.1 There are aspects of prevailing policy and practice which could usefully be reviewed and revised: — Adopting a more feasible approach to benchmarking success which recognises the different circumstances of different schools—for example non-selective schools in selective areas. — Recognising that subjects such as the Arts, Music and Modern Foreign Languages can have a wider benefit for pupils in terms of curricular engagement and community engagement than is often recognised. — Academic attainment is vital but represents one strand of educational achievement and a variety of other factors should be considered when looking at the quality of education provision. — There is a prevailing but floored assumption that a school which is performing way above floor targets will make a more suitable sponsor for a struggling school than one which is only just meeting floor targets but have a variety of strengths. This is not necessarily the case. — Academy chains should not be seen as a panacea, given that the evidence suggests that some impose a corporate blue-print which is the antithesis of diversity and choice espoused by the government. 4.2 There is a view that there is a need for more state boarding schools. The DYRMS provides a solid sustainable model which could be uses to promote and support development elsewhere. 4.3 The answer for every struggling school is not to have them taken over but to match the strengths and weakness of the school with a potential partner, where there are natural synergies and building blocks. 4.4 Insufficient attention has been paid to the potential of cross phase collaboration which can have a benefit for all age ranges. 4.5 There are many potential models of successful collaboration—The DFA/DYRMS model represents one successful example of cross phase collaboration between very different schools which has generated tangible benefits for all. October 2013 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w100 Education Committee: Evidence

Written evidence submitted by Titus Alexander Submission from Titus Alexander, convener of Democracy Matters, an informal alliance of over 30 civil society networks and education providers. I was not been able to consult on a response to the inquiry, so this is a personal submission based on our principles. I write as a former schools adviser and inspector, author of Citizenship Schools: a practical guide (Campaign for Learning) and co-editor of Education for a Change: Transforming the way we teach our children (Routledge Falmer, 2005) as well as convener of Democracy Matters.

Summary This submission addresses the Committee’s questions about “the potential tension between school partnership and cooperation, and school choice and competition can be resolved” and the dis-incentives to “form meaningful and lasting relationships with other schools” built into the current regime. It highlights the democratic deficit in accountability for schools (§1) and the damaging side-effects of our standardised, top-down, target-driven accountability as the main driver of school behaviour (§2). It proposes that tensions between cooperation and school choice can best be resolved by strengthening local democratic accountability for school provision (§3) and encouraging schools to develop a cooperative, democratic ethos as exemplified by the cooperative schools movement (§4) without losing the benefits of healthy competition and choice. I would also remind the Committee of the ground-breaking tradition of community schools, particularly in Cambridgeshire (which pioneered local management of schools) and Leicestershire, from which we can still learn a great deal about school partnerships and cooperation (§5).

1. Local Democratic Deficit 1.1 Academies and academy chains have created a democratic deficit, particularly in relation to the schools as a community focus and collaboration for school improvement. The reduction in Local Authority (LA) influence and weakening of local accountability to all stakeholders means that schools are less likely to take account of wider issues that affect their local area, even although these can have affect the outcomes and life- chances of their pupils. 1.2 My experience as an education adviser was that head teachers were intensely focused on the needs of their pupils even when local authorities had control over schools, so that provision for under-fives, parents, youth services, adult education or facilities for health, leisure or other activities usually came a distant second. This focus increased with Local Management of Schools (LMS), when cooperative relationships with other services were often replaced by commercial relationships. Schools used to collaborate on a wide range of curriculum development projects and professional development for teachers and other staff, supported by their local authorities, but this progressively reduced with LMS and the creation of academies and free schools. Many schools only take part in collaborative activities if explicitly funded to do so. This is a loss to both the community and the school. 1.3 The withdrawal of schools as a community focus and resource makes it harder for civil society, local authorities and other agencies to address issues in a joined-up way. However, the old model of local authorities is no longer sufficient and I suggest we should be open to developing new models of local accountability, as proposed by the Cooperative College.

2. Driversof Division 2.1 Since the 1988 Education Reform Act the main driver of school behaviour has been external assessment and performance measurement against centrally determined standards coupled with parental choice. This has reduced cooperation between schools without bringing about the hoped for improvement in attainment by pupils, particularly at lower ability levels in more deprived areas. Although there has been improvement in schools, the current assessment system pushes young people into pursuing qualiﬁcations that are more helpful to the school’s ranking in league tables than to their personal future, and fails to develop the abilities and all- round character needed to thrive in a rapidly changing, complex world. 2.2 The 25-year drive for standardised assessment of pupils and schools does not take account of the extensive research evidence which shows that “formative assessment” improves learning for all, particularly for low achievers,52 and that “summative assessment” as used for league tables has a demotivating effect on lower achievers who see themselves as unable to learn and become disruptive or truant as a result. Such young people are likely to become alienated from society and both the source and the victims of serious social problems (see Inside the Black Box53). 52 See http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/education/research/crestem/assessment/index.aspx, and http://www.gl-assessment.co.uk/products/black-box-series 53 Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment, Black, P, Wiliam, D (1998). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w101

2.3 In Detoxifying School Accountability: the case for multi-perspective inspection54 (Demos 2013) James Park makes a compelling case for promoting school improvement and choice by: — ending centralised standardisation which defines what qualifications young people should acquire (eg five GCSEs) and allowing schools to decide what measures of attainment and performance are best for the needs of their pupils, and — promoting “multi-level inspection” which involves everyone in a cooperative process of continuous school improvement. 2.4 These three measures (assessment for learning, abolition of top-down central standardisation and multi- level inspection) would do more to promote school improvement and cooperation than the divisive and counter- productive external straight jacket imposed by Ofsted and Ofqual.

3. Local Democratic Determination 3.1 Every area is different, in its economy, geography and people. Local people should be able to decide the appropriate model of school partnership, cooperation, choice and competition for their area. Elected local councils may be the appropriate local democratic body to oversee schools in some areas. However, we should also be open to the possibility of new models of democratic accountability. 3.2 As the Cooperative College points out, we now seeing the organic creation of a new education sector, state funded but school owned and directed, co-operating through legal mutual structures. The membership based model of community stake-holding offers genuine localism in the management and use of public assets by local communities. Co-operative trusts are about mutualisation and groups of schools working strategically together for the common good. It deserves more active consideration and support as a model for local democratic determination.

4. Strengthening Cooperative Ethos 4.1 Schools also have a vital role in developing civic responsibility, values and behaviours in pupils and indeed the wider school community. What pupils learn through the “hidden curriculum” of the school ethos can be more important in later life than the content of the curriculum. 4.2 Co-operative schools aspire to create an ethos based on co-operative values which are formally recognised in the trust constitution: — Governance mechanisms directly engage stakeholders—parents and carers, staff, learners and the local community through membership. — A curriculum and pedagogy that embraces co-operation, using the global co-operative sector as a learning resource and drawing on co-operative approaches to teaching and learning. — Involvement of parents as the biggest inﬂuence on pupils’ attainment. 4.3 Co-operative Trusts are clusters of schools which provide a legal framework to improve schools through co-operation and offer a new model for developing local democratic accountability which should be explored further. 4.4 There is now an opportunity for a bottom-up school owned and led, building membership in their communities and impacting on every aspect of a child’s life in the community. Being school owned and run, services brokered and provided via co-operative school trusts can make money go further as well as being more effective in terms of impact. School owned co-operatives provide what schools need, not what someone else thinks they need—and co-operatives will not seek to “short change” their schools.

5. Lessons from the Community Schools Movement 5.1 Britain had a rich tradition of community schools pioneered by local leaders in school, communities and local authorities55 which has been neglected and sometimes destroyed by the top-down centralisation of education. 5.2 A community school is both a physical place and also a network of relationships between a school and its community. It brings together the focus on learning with health, social services, adult education, youth and community development and citizenship to improve student learning, support families and promote healthier communities. Community schools can offer a personalised curriculum that includes real-world learning and community problem-solving as well as academic study. 5.3 Community schools are centres of the community, open to everyone—all day, every day, evenings and weekends. They are local hubs which bring together many partners organisations to offer a wide range of support and opportunity for children, young people, families and local people, to enable pupils to succeed academically, physically, socially and emotionally. They help to develop both resilient individuals and strong communities to create a safe and desirable place to live. 54 http://www.demos.co.uk/ﬁles/Detoxifying_School_Accountability_-_web.pdf?1367602207 55 See http://www.infed.org/schooling/b-comsch.htm cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w102 Education Committee: Evidence

5.4 The current school system offers choice like television channels which broadcast a standardised output controlled by Ofsted, Ofqual and the Department for Education. It is highly unlikely that these bodies know what every young person or the economy needs and wants in future. What we need is a ﬂexible, locally accountable and locally run school system that is more like a smart phone with a wide choice of “apps” for teachers and communities to use for continuous improvement.

6. Conclusion

6.1 We need new forms of democratic accountability based on cooperative principles and structures which combines both personal and collective responsibility for learning at the level of the school and also their local area. The current system of standardised control from the centre is counter-productive and divisive. We need to enable schools, local areas and parents to decide what is best for them and their future. This should include: — abolition of top-down centralised standardisation of education; — active support for assessment for learning by teachers; — support for multi-level inspection by schools and their stakeholders; and — encouragement of a cooperative ethos and values by schools.

These measures would do more to promote school improvement and cooperation than the straight jacket imposed by Ofsted and Ofqual. October 2013

Written evidence submitted by London Leadership Strategy

1. Who are we?

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

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

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

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

Our programmes are structured around what we know works in school improvement and the key to our success is our belief that the knowledge for school improvement is both within schools and can be shared between schools. We focus on developing the system leadership and believe in improved outcomes through collaboration. Our outcomes are based on careful brokering of relationships—matching the right schools together in programmes that are carefully focused around hard outcomes for pupils. Example 1 London Leadership Strategy—“Securing Good” Programme “Securing Good” is targeted at schools which were judged as Grade 3 (satisfactory/requiring improvement) in their last/previous Ofsted inspection and are working to improve their schools to secure Good at the next inspection. The participant schools were initially London secondary schools but we have a cluster of Devon schools involved and also a Manchester hub. The programme is organised around a series of half-termly conferences focussing on a key theme: eg improving quality of teaching, raising achievement, strengthening leadership and management. These include presentations from inspectors, specialists and practitioners, usually outstanding Head teachers and senior leaders from outstanding schools. Each school on the programme is also paired up with a highly successful Head teacher with a proven track record who works with them in a consultancy capacity. Usually, these colleagues are NCSL National Leaders in Education and Local Leaders in Education. Schools that we are supporting have enjoyed impressive levels of success. There are 18 schools in the group. Nine have been inspected so far in this academic year with six securing a good judgement and one achieving outstanding. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w103

2. Summary ofPoints There is much evidence to suggest that school collaborations and partnerships work. Evaluation of the National Literacy/Numeracy Strategies , Primary Learning Networks, NCSL Networked Learning Communities, Beacon schools and the work of the former Specialist Schools and Academies Trust all point to the success of well-structured approaches to school to school partnerships and school improvement OFSTED’s review of London Challenge http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/london-challenge is clear in how the approach adopted by London Leadership drives up school standards across collaborating schools.56 Most schools will adopt more than one approach to collaboration and certainly LLS encourages this as do well-rounded MATs. Example 2 Outline the many partnerships of one example school Southfields Academy Academy Teaching School Local cluster London Leadership Strategy Challenge Partners Pan London School Games School partnerships are built around a knowledge management model and to be successful depend upon organisational and social capital. To be effective they are based on trust and highly dependent on a coaching and active learning model of delivery. Strong project management is a vital ingredient—in short somebody has to manage the relationships. Careful selection and matching of partners with clear terms of engagement and accountability must be established at the beginning of any partnership arrangement. Example 3 Deployment of NLEs London Leadership has a small secretariat and a network of very experienced heads as both Company Directors and part of the strategic management team taking on brokering provision. This has included NLE deployment with experienced Heads brokering partnerships with schools requiring support. In 2011, the LLS received National College funding to provide support to 19 primary schools with a history of low attainment. The London Leadership Strategy delivered a structured programme of support through the NLE deployment model. Twelve experienced headteachers (NLEs and LLEs) in the LLS network were engaged to deliver this one-on-one support. Participating schools attribute significant success to this work.57 LLS brokers school to school partnerships and matching is carefully considered. NLE/LLE/SLEs all have to be trained in coaching as part of the Q/A process. Colleagues providing the support also receive challenge and support form a senior HT who has oversight of the work. Much of the support is not reliant upon a single strategy but focused on be-spoke solutions. This work if it is to be effective is not easy and involves complex processes and a mix of facilitating conditions. It also depends on understanding different contexts and should be focused and outcome oriented. In short it is not about the best leading the rest it is about co-construction. In London Leadership we have quite clear targets and goals and the impact of partnership work is evaluated in terms of concrete outcomes relating to the achievement of pupils. To do this work schools must demonstrate that they have the capacity to deliver, are credible to their peers and are skilful in strategic planning and contracting. The most obvious form of encouragement, setting aside moral purpose is the belief that by being involved in partnerships that focus on joint practice development we will also continue to improve. This will results in a double lift in performance. Governing Bodies do accept that the opportunities provided for staff to work with other schools can contribute to their own professional development. However if a school is heavily involved in a range of these partnerships the project management has to be accounted for. At a time of reducing budgets it is sometimes difficult for schools to purchase school improvement support but some form of resource is required for the provider school. We have been involved in independent state school partnerships and these have great potential. In our experience the issue here has been the openness of the state schools and willingness to release teachers. In the independent sector they are mindful of the fees paid by parents. The convertor academies’ requirement to support other schools is certainly not policed and Teaching School Alliances are of variable quality. 56 London Challenge, OFSTED 2010 http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/london-challenge 57 London Leadership NLE Deployment Summary 2012 http://londonleadershipstrategy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ NLE%20Deployment%20Output%20Report.pdf cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w104 Education Committee: Evidence

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

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

One of the down sides is the very high stakes accountability system but this can also be a reason for supporting each other to cope with the demands of Ofsted and a more rigorous examination system. Proposed principles of good school collaboration and partnership — must follow existing evidence of what works in school improvement—while more research is needed on what supports knowledge transfer we do know that approaches based around effective coaching; long term support and with a focus on outcomes for children have best impact; — approach must be carefully matched to where schools are in their improvement cycle; — must be of beneﬁt for all partners eg outstanding staff beneﬁt from working with others as in articulating what they do that is effective they develop their own understanding and practice; — capacity must be built into systems for heads/others to do the work—for all schools in partnership; — must be internally valued (teaching staff, wider staff, governors, parents etc); — must be externally valued (OFSTED, DfE, local authority, MAT etc); — there must be development for those providing support eg coaching, etc—NLE is the entry level not end level for those leading school to school improvement; and — deep sustained impact of schools takes time—pressure for quick wins in school improvement is a risk.

3. Considering the Select CommitteeQuestions inDetail

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

Work by NCSL details well the different approaches to school collaboration and the advantages and disadvantages of same.i58

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

Advantages of LLS model (as reported by members): — Head teacher and senior leader mentoring. — Sharing best practice—teaching and learning, leadership, safe guarding, etc. — Sharing resources. — Sharing training—resources, expertise, facilities. — Consortium—sharing the curriculum—enabling a curricula provision that on their own, schools would not be able to provide or deliver. — Quality controls. — Short term—immediate issue/problem solving partnerships—one to one coaching relationships when well brokered are highly effective. — The various London Leadership programmes are highly effective because they bring Heads together who have a common cause—getting good, staying good, getting outstanding and staying outstanding.

Challenges are: — Incentives for and risks to outstanding schools. — Building capacity within school for improvement. 58 Introductions to Models and Partnerships NCSL 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w105

Example 4 View from a LLS Head on advantages of LLS approach The advantages are: an organisational framework then ensures synergy between partners and a coherent set of aims and practices linked to system wide improvement rather than small scale interventions/support. Disadvantages: ensuring all partners participate and support in an equitable way/a way commensurate with their areas of strength. Example 5 advantages of head run systems—some good practice Harrow’s heads group is a highly effective Local Headteacher Groups—working very closely to share resources, agree different resourcing strategies and tackle issues and problems. Like many of these partnerships they are very good at taking risks and have a large no of system leaders in their membership. They have sponsored an Academy for BESD and they made the conversion to academy status as a group. The Brent Partnership which spans secondary, special and primary. Quite young but this group has a number of system leaders and has begun the process of joint purchasing, provision of CPD and developing systems to support schools in challenging circumstances. The Leadership Development Grant produced a very innovative and impactful partnership between 10 secondary schools in Brent—the focus was on building leadership capacity and stamina in Heads and it was hosted by a lead school—with the money to support the programme—and facilitated by experts from the Tavistock. Success was because of the money available through the leadership grant and the willingness of the Heads to take the risk of working together even though they were in competition with one another for pupil numbers).

3.2 How highly performing schools could better be encouraged to cooperate with others; and Whether there are any additional upsides or downsides for highly performing schools supporting others through partnerships There needs to be a focus both on incentives for schools as a whole and for individual leaders. Many school leaders focus on supporting and working with others schools because of what they see as a moral imperative to improve outcomes for all children. School leaders share concerns over knowledge being lost from the system and new heads—particularly of free schools—coming in with limited knowledge and experience. Heads want to share their knowledge and can see risks in a system that is about lose a tranche of experienced senior leaders at a time of massive system change. A recent roundtable at NCB on safeguarding, for example, shared concerns that the churn in the system was leading to a leeching out of knowledge on safeguarding from the system leadership. With effective brokering there are benefits to all partners in collaborative school improvement. However there are significant risks: — teacher burnout and stress—many take it on as additional with limited backfill in schools; — own school falls backwards; and — outstanding schools needs to focus on their own development. Example 6 Supporting outstanding schools The G4G programme was set up in 2009 with the following aims: To encapsulate key features and qualities of schools which are consistently outstanding, in order to better understand how outstanding schools become great schools. To support schools rated as outstanding by OFSTED in maintaining this designation in subsequent inspection. To support succession planning both in outstanding schools and those they are working with. To support outstanding schools in maximising their impact on the local, national and/or international community, through effective systemic leadership. To ensure that outstanding schools are helping to make education in London world class. Each year, the leaders of 24 outstanding secondary schools across the capital (a different cohort every 12 months) come together for half termly seminars, visit each other’s schools and commit to producing a case study of excellent practice in their institution for publication.59

3.3 Whether schools have sufﬁcient incentives to form meaningful and lasting relationships with other schools Teachers enter into education to make a difference—to improve outcomes for children. This sense of moral purpose is real and enduring and is too often underestimated in debate on how competition will impact on education. Teachers want the best outcomes for the children in their care but there is no evidence that they are 59 Going for Great publications will be forwarded with covering letters to all Select Committee members as well as secretariat cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w106 Education Committee: Evidence

prepared to pursue this at the expense of children in other settings—indeed the teaching profession is bursting with examples of teachers wanting to share their knowledge and skills with no return. This week’s TES for example shows how across the globe teachers are sharing teach created content, for free at a rate of 700,000 downloads a day. LLS consultant heads, like many others, give much time pro bono—outwith of working hours and without pay or TOIL—to support other schools. That is not to say that “incentives” are not necessary but rather suggests that they should be focused about the practical issues of releasing school staff and committing school time. Incentives currently include: — small (6K) payment for NLEs/support schools; — teaching school funding; — funding received when converting to academy status; — opportunities to “sell in” services to others schools; and — some opportunities for staff development and career progression. Incentives should include: — tendered opportunities for school to school improvement programmes that include NLE deployment, brokering services etc. that will fund both small secretariat co-ordination piece and evaluation and brokering approaches as well as development. Leave school budgets to pay for direct delivery costs; — building on the NLE programme with clear training routes and accreditation for those providing school to school improvement making this a clear career path; — system leadership and support for other schools being part of the inspection framework for outstanding schools; and — teachers leading further funded research on how we make leadership learning and school improvement as effective as possible. The notion (reﬂected within NLE/SLE/teaching school thinking) that eventually school improvement systems can be self-sustaining from within school budgets is naïve. Modelling by LLS shows that covering the true costs of school to school improvement work (including development of new approaches, evaluation of impact as well as covering all costs attached to administration and brokering) would price this work beyond what schools could afford to pay. This appears to be reﬂected in other programmes (the NAHT Aspire programme for example—comparable to LLS’ Securing Good model) requires a subsidy of £5,000 for each school involved in the programme. There is much focus on how MATs are developing their school to school work. Many academy chains encourage their schools to engage in LLS programmes recognising that accessing learning from outwith of the chain is the key to continuous improvement and to avoid “groupthink”. As MATs are forming they need to show not just how their school to school systems work within chain but also how they reach out beyond chain to learn with others. Academies should be required to provide a review of their partnership and collaborative activities—as outlined in their academy plans—in their annual reports.

3.4 If and how the potential tension between school partnership and cooperation, and school choice and competition can be resolved Here moral purpose should not be discounted—heads and schools want to do this. Teachers enter the profession to improve outcomes for all children—not just those in their direct care. But schools are moving towards a marketplace structure and this tension cannot be ignored. Bodies like LLS can help to avoid any potential competitive clashes eg by partnering schools with limited geographic competition across boroughs or even outside of London but also reaching into MATs to partner their schools with others outside of the chain. More strategically David Hargreaves offers a way of working towards a resolution of this tension in his description of the Silicone Valley model of cooperation between highly successful businesses compared to the Boston Route 128 competition model (Towards A Self Improving School System60). HP—one of the most competitive organisations in the IT world—gave away much of its knowledge. It recognised that competitors would do this back—creating social capital, trust and reciprocity, and that everyone would win through developing off the back of this shared knowledge. Many schools recognise that co-operation improves the outcomes of the school above that of the competitors. So partners become co-competitors—incentivising competition where there is clear improvement in outcomes and therefore a stronger position in market for the collaborating group of schools. 60 Leading A Self Improving School System, David Hargreaves for NCSL, 2011 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w107

This can usefully be compared to the consultant model in hospitals. Consultant posts are highly sought after and their funding streams are highly competitive. But when new developments are made colleagues from other areas are called in to learn from them. There is high social capital—trust; shared goals; sense of greater than self; reciprocity leads to sharing of intellectual capital and a virtual circle is created. Within education we need to remember many heads are driven by moral purpose. The system needs to build on and support this—both within accountability frameworks formally and through the tone set from the leadership of the education system.

4. Conclusion There is much evidence that school to school improvement works and more widely that a collaborative model improves outcomes. The system is “messy”. There are multiple models of school improvement and partnership and schools will adopt those that work for their circumstance. Incentives are few and in general poorly policed and the suggestion that school to school improvement will ultimately be funded through school budgets is at best naïve and at worse disingenuous. Ultimately the question of what the model of heads and teachers leading the system has to confront is the question of how to upscale the good work of individual partnerships into networks of school improvement embracing not just a few schools but 24,000 schools. The scale of this challenge goes beyond the good work and commitment of individual schools and needs to be part of an appropriate large scale organisation that can integrate the work of partner schools and provide a coherent model of system wide school improvement— London Leadership presents one such proven model.

Reference i ??? October 2013

Written evidence submitted by David Weston, Chief Executive on behalf of the Teacher Development Trust This submission considers the role of school partnership, co-operation and competition in the delivery of teacher professional development, from initial teacher education to ongoing and leadership development, and in the related drive to encourage teachers to engage more fully with evidence and research.

Summary — In order to facilitate partnerships which facilitates effective professional development we need to create tight partnerships with mutual responsibility for outcomes, shared goals, opportunities for collaboration, and some shared resourcing. — The current incentives system act as a disincentive for collaboration. We need to both incentivise and facilitate effective co-operation and school-to-school support.

1. Types of School Partnership andCo-operation 1.1 The English education system has a large range of different types of partnerships, from the formal to the informal, such as: — Membership of an academy chain. — Membership of a tight federation with executive leadership. — Membership of a loose federation with some shared services. — Teaching school alliances. — A maintained school as part of a local education authority. — Local school improvement partnerships. — Membership of national networks (such as the National Teacher Enquiry Network, Challenge Partners, Whole Education). — Affiliation to a university, perhaps as part of an initial teacher education partnership, masters education work, or joint research. — Affiliation to national training and/or support schemes, eg TeachFirst, Teaching Leaders, Future Leaders, Achievement for All. — Relationships between schools with NLEs, LLEs and SLEs and schools they are working with. — Secondary schools and their feeder primaries. — Partnership through union membership/affiliation/joint action. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w108 Education Committee: Evidence

1.2 These partnerships cover a full spectrum of opportunities such that schools are able to choose their level of independence and the extent to which they co-operate with other schools. 1.3 Not all of these partnerships have an explicitly defined role to play in professional development. Some of them explicitly foster the joint development of teaching practice across schools (eg Teaching School Alliances) while others tend to have no role (eg secondary schools and feeder primaries). 1.4 For the purposes of creating effective professional development of staff the following are needed: — Mutual trust, respect and responsibility between participants and leaders/facilitators; — A focus on long-term learning goals which are aligned to personal and organisational development goals; — Sufficient time and money to enable long-term, regular collaboration; — An ability to share and analyse data in order to evaluate progress; — External expertise, support and challenge; and — A culture of professional learning, disciplined innovation (risk-taking with sufficient safe- guards) and basing decisions on evidence (eg accessing research). 1.5 Tighter partnerships, federations and groupings are therefore more likely to facilitate effective professional development as there will be greater alignment of goals, processes and resourcing with an enhanced ability to share expertise. Tighter partnerships will also ensure a greater sense of shared responsibility and more opportunities to build up trust and respect, although this is more of a function of culture, leadership and relationships than any particular structure per se. 1.6 Overall then, we should be encouraging partnerships where there is some shared resourcing, shared development goals with some collective responsibility for improvement, an ability for staff to collaborate, and an ability to share data across the partner schools.

2. Incentives to Form Relationships, Tensions betweenPartnership andCompetition 2.1 While schools are being held to account solely for their individual performance then it is inevitable that the top performing schools will have strong disincentives against collaborating with weaker schools. We generally see relationships being formed which are one-sided. Schools are happy to join networks that provide support, advice and resources for their improvement but any expressions of mutual responsibility will be overwhelmed by threats from Ofsted if they appear. 2.2 A radical solution to this would be to require every school to be part of a grouping of schools such that they will be held accountable for the group’s performance. However, with the current drive toward autonomy this may go against the grain. 2.3 Another possible solution, either in addition or as an alternative, would be to establish a database of best practice in order to form school-to-school improvement relationships. This would contain recommendations from respected major national organisations (such as subject associations, academy chains, unions, Ofsted, etc) of outstanding institutions and departments. Each recommendation would be accompanied by case studies and offers of further support. This support could be commissioned/purchased and there could be an element of accountability for improvement outcomes. 2.4 For example, if a school decides it needs to improve its History department then it would search the database for nearby recommendations and may ﬁnd: — A local department which was highlighted by Ofsted in a best-practice case study. — A local head of department who is a Specialist Leader of Education within a Teaching School Alliance. — A nearby humanities faculty that has been recommended by the Historical Association for outstanding practice. — A history department in a nearby region which has been recommended by an Academy Chain for its innovation. — A history teacher who has been listed by a university department who has completed a doctorate in the pedagogy of history. — A history department which has been recommended by the ASCL union. 2.5 The school would decide which of these organisations it felt was the most aligned to its needs and values and then contact its chosen expert or department for support. The support may come in the form of: — A visit with follow-up coaching/mentoring. — A series of short secondments or job-swaps. — A series of joint lesson-planning, assessment and moderation meetings. — A training programme provided by the recommending organisation (eg the Historical Association or the ASCL union). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w109

2.6 Schools who have been deemed to be “failing” may be directed to take part in one of these relationships by Ofsted whereas other institutions could choose to participate as part of their school improvement. Schools who are good or outstanding should be expected to be providing some form of school-to-school support and given credit for successful outcomes in partner schools. There may also be an element where less successful partnerships are penalised, although I’d be concerned that this would lead to further disincentives to engage in the ﬁrst place.

2.7 The Teacher Development Trust has proposed this database of best practice to the DfE as we feel that it would complement our existing national database of professional development, GoodCPDGuide. We believe that it would be of signiﬁcant value to enable more successful knowledge exchange within the education system and would help with the sharing and development of good practice in other areas such as curriculum development and narrowing the gap. October 2013

Written evidence submitted by Wellington College

Information compiled by: Cressida Henderson (Assistant Head, Academies, Wellington College)

I have worked as the key liaison between Wellington College, Crowthorne and The Wellington Academy, Wiltshire for the past three years. I co-ordinate our joint activities, organise our joint Operating Committee and sit on the Senior Leadership Team at The Wellington Academy.

Summary — Wellington College is a mixed independent boarding school for 13–18 year olds. Currently 1,040 on roll. It is the sole sponsor of The Wellington Academy, Ludgershall, Wiltshire which was formerly a failing school (Castledown) and is a mixed boarding and day secondary school with 992 on roll. There are currently 58 boarders: capacity for 100. — The Wellington Academy opened in September 2009 and moved into its new £32 million building (adjacent to the former site) in April 2011. — The governing body of The Wellington Academy includes former Wellington College governors and staff. The chair of governors and a further seven governors have connections with the College (past/ current parents, bursar, senior leaders and teachers, past/current governors). — The Wellington Academy has the second highest number of service families of any secondary school nationally. — Wellington College is the only independent school to have given its name to an Academy. — The Academy is approximately 48 miles away from the College: about an hour by road.

Report

1. Sponsorship of Academies

Wellington College has sponsored one Academy but we are looking to sponsor more. Our priority is to sponsor a primary academy close to our secondary academy. We are also considering sponsoring one more secondary school and one more primary school. It is not our intention to create a large group of academies as we wish to be able to sustain a good level of support to those we sponsor and believe this would be difﬁcult for us to do if we expanded too far.

2. Disadvantages of sponsoring our Academy

The distance between the College and its Academy has proved a challenge at times. Logistical difﬁculties (time taken to travel, differing length of the school day at each establishment, cost of transport) has inevitably required careful planning and budgeting.

We have also had to manage perceptions of staff and students as to the “other” sector. This has necessitated diplomacy, good communication and understanding. To minimise the perception that the sponsor is arrogant or has it easy, we have built relationships and offered support. We have also had to challenge and speak our minds whilst acknowledging our limitations. The Academy has also had to become more willing to take the support on offer and to accept feedback.

We have had to offer more support over the past academic year than previously and this has had cost implications for the College in terms of senior and middle leader hours. The Academy’s full inspection in December 2011 resulted in a judgment of “satisfactory” that was obviously a disappointment and meant that a comprehensive development plan was needed with considerable support in place from the College. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w110 Education Committee: Evidence

3. Advantages ofPartnership—Academy The Academy’s ﬁrst set of GCSE results in August 2010 was substantially better than those of its predecessor school. It moved from being one of the lowest-performing schools in Wiltshire to the top of the table in three out of the four categories measured. OFSTED judged the school to be making outstanding progress in December 2010 (albeit with several caveats). GCSE results in 2012 showed an increase from 45% to 48% in terms of % A*–C including Maths and English, as compared to 2010. Academy students have beneﬁted from a range of opportunities offered: lectures and conferences at the College, sports coaching and matches, creative writing trips alongside College students, extra help with core subjects from College teachers, reading buddies, joint drama productions and much more.

4. Advantages ofPartnership—College The College has beneﬁtted from the opportunity to send several of its teachers to the Academy as part of their GTP training (Graduate Teacher Programme) and those teachers have received the support and expertise of Academy mentors. One of the participating teachers from College said: “Working at the Academy was a real eye opener. What was interesting was to see the real range of backgrounds the pupils come from. For some of the pupils the structure they get at school was the only structure they get in their daily lives.” The fact that we have sponsored a state school has made us an attractive prospect in the eyes of potential recruits to the teaching body. Parents are supportive of our commitment to contributing positively to the state sector. They see it as a logical part of our vision and our outward-looking approach. Students gain by collaborating with their peers from a wider social background. They learn to be ﬂexible, welcoming and open- minded. There are some subjects and activities that we do not offer here at College that thrive at the Academy. College students have attended Academy events such as a motivational day for girls (careers), a joint Restorative Justice workshop, a talk by a local politician and a Year 9 resilience training delivered by the leaders of a specialist organisation and Academy students.

5. Scope of thePartnership—Academic The Academy and College collaborate in a number of ways. On the academic side, we have paired key departments (departments where there has been underperformance at the Academy) and have asked our middle leaders to work together on improving standards. This has included a review of the Schemes of Work, lesson observations, sharing of ideas, modelling of teaching. The departments where most work has been done are Maths, Humanities and Languages but there have been visits and collaboration in Art, DT and PE too. College teachers have added to the year 11 intervention programme. For instance, Geography teachers are visiting on a rotation basis to offer direct help to a class which does not have a specialist teacher. Maths intervention involved key groups in Year 11 (borderline candidates at B/A and C/D) coming to the College for workshops. Heads of Maths have been working together for several months across all age groups. The Heads of Wellbeing follow similar schemes of work and are in regular contact. There have been visits by many Academy staff to the College to observe lessons, particularly at KS5 (the predecessor school had no 6th Form). The Academy is following the College’s lead in using Harkness methodology for post-16 classes in English and Humanities. Two senior leaders have had substantial input this year: the Academic Deputy has been line-managing a number of middle leaders and putting systems in place to improve the monitoring of teaching and learning. In addition, my role has expanded to include some Year 11 teaching as well as line-managing the languages department and the literacy co-ordinator this year. Both of us have spent 2–2.5 days a week at the Academy from February through to May. If the Academy asks for help in any area, we can generally provide it. I would say that the Academy feels supported by the sponsor.

6. Scope of thePartnership—Pastoral On the pastoral side, the College’s Pastoral Deputy inspects the boarding house every six months to check it is compliant and following best practice. There has been a visit to the new boarding facilities by the matrons of the College (at their request). This has begun a dialogue among support staff and a sharing of ideas. Academy boarders attend some College events (for example, our Fireworks Spectacular in November), joining our boarders in houses for supper beforehand. Academy boarding staff have been buddied with boarding staff at the College.

7. Scope of thePartnership—OtherActivities There has been a huge variety of activities over the past three years that reflects the range of experiences of students in each establishment. Joint activities include a joint musical (some solos from each school, chorus and solos rehearsed separately then brought together in final two weeks, music provided by College musicians, performed for nights nights at each school); participation of the Academy in an event at the Royal Albert Hall (flag bearers, film showing school life, narrators, choir); Year 9 plays based on fairy tales for Year 6/Year 8 transition pupils for each school in modern languages (Mandarin and French from the College, Spanish and German from the Academy); attendance at each other’s productions (pantomime at College, annual musical at the Academy); joint sporting activities, usually coaching and match play in football (with seniors and with our prep school), rugby, swimming and cricket; joint lectures and conferences. The experience of attending lectures, cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w111

events, productions and so on at College, means that the Academy students get through the gates and are aware of the level of aspiration of others. Some of the children whom I accompanied on the Royal Albert Hall performance day had never been to London. When they saw where they would perform they were amazed. But the experience is equally beneﬁcial the other way. Of particular value recently was the year 9 intervention programme “Humanutopia” which saw College year 9s attend, as an entire year group, and experience some powerful resilience and anti-bullying training co-delivered by Academy Year 10s. One of the College boys said: “It was the best thing in terms of learning that I have done this year at Wellington and I really enjoyed interacting with the Academy students.” Another example of the beneﬁt of the Academy to the sponsor school is in the example of a service project which has been made available to our students. A group of Lower 6th Formers spend Wednesday afternoons learning how to deliver live radio as the Academy has its own radio station on site. One participant from College said: “I have found the radio experience to be extremely valuable. Not only have I had an amazing time with my friends but I have also gained a really valuable insight into the media industry under the guidance of the radio staff. I strongly recommend this experience!”

8. Challenges

There are a number of challenges which we are working to resolve. As The Wellington Academy bears our name, we are hugely invested in its success. The fact that its most recent OFSTED rating is “3” is something we all want to change. We will know whether our partnership has helped produce school improvement when GCSE results come out in August and when the result of the next inspection is known. The turnover of staff is fairly high and is a factor in its planning and success. Recruiting and training the right quality of senior leadership has been a key challenge. The location of the school has an impact: rural Wiltshire, fairly isolated, with little in the way of cultural/academic stimulus. The students themselves often have low aspirations and nearly half of them come from army families. This means that there is a transient school population which also impacts on learning. The relationship of the Academy with the sponsor continues to need work. As one GTP teacher said: “There appeared to be two schools of thought. There were some members of staff that believe Wellington had no right to come and tell them how to run their school. There were, however, others who were very grateful for the impact and beneﬁt that Wellington was having on their school. Some were even envious of the fact that we work in such a great school.”

9. The Future

Our intention is to continue our commitment to our Academy. There are plans to sponsor a primary Academy close to the secondary one in Wiltshire. Further down the line, we hope to sponsor another primary and another secondary but closer to us geographically. We are committed to investing resources (time, support, advice) to the Academy that bears our name. As a Teaching School, we will be supporting other secondary schools locally but will be supporting our own Academy above all. In order to underline our credentials as leaders in education we are ﬁrmly committed to helping our own Academy with school improvement. October 2013

Written evidence submitted by North Tyneside Learning Trust

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

1. North Tyneside Learning Trust is a partnership comprising of 34 schools (appendix 1) working with colleges, universities and businesses to improve education and life chances for children and young people. The Trust was established in 2010 with 23 original member schools, membership has increased year on year and there are six schools currently consulting to join the Trust which will increase member school numbers to 40 by October 2013.

2. The Trust works with over 20 (appendix 2) formal employer partners from private, public and third sector organisations to deliver our priorities which are: — Securing School Improvement. — Strengthening governance and leadership in schools. — Supporting outstanding teaching. — Increasing progression to Further and Higher Education. — Increasing participation and attainment in STEM subjects. — Supporting early years development. — Improving learning outcomes and life chances. — Creating a sustainable framework for long term collaboration between schools, Higher Education, Further Education and employers. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w112 Education Committee: Evidence

— Developing collaborative partnerships with employers and other partners to enrich the curriculum. — Developing education to employment pathways. — Supporting the transformation of North Tyneside into a high wage high skill economy. — Engaging in research and development activity geared towards improving social mobility and tackling disadvantage. 3. North Tyneside Learning Trust is a registered charity and company limited by guarantee. The Trust is governed by a Board of Directors which is Chaired by the Headteacher of a member school. The Board comprises of ﬁve Directors representing schools, two Directors representing employer partners, one Director representing HE/FE partners and one Director representing the local authority. The Trust is essentially led by schools for schools and informed by business. 4. Trust membership has a number of distinct advantages for schools as the Trust delivers a range of activities and services to support Trust schools. 4.1 Strengthening governance in schools—the Trust appoints 2 Trust Governors to the governing body of each Trust school. Trust Governors are generally selected from business and industry to strengthen, support and challenge and offer a business perspective to governing body discussions and decision making. 4.2 Developing leadership and supporting outstanding teaching through high quality CPD for staff—the Trust sponsors a range of CPD opportunities geared towards strengthening leadership and supporting outstanding teaching in partnership with the Trust Teaching School, Whitley Bay High school and partner organisations including the National Science Learning Centre (NSLC) and the National Centre of Excellence for Teaching Mathematics (NCETM). 4.3 Brokering lucrative partnerships—the Trust has entered into a range of partnerships with companies, charities and trusts to enhance and enrich the curriculum and introduce innovative new approaches to teaching and learning. For example the Trust is working with: — British Airways on a £20 million Employer Ownership of Skills bid focussing on the development of Project Management and Employability Skills within all 10 Trust Secondary Schools. — Northumbria University on a £1.3 million HEFCE bid geared towards increasing participation in Physics offering activities to support progression from pre-school to undergraduate study. — The Smallpiece Trust, Arkwright Scholarships, Engineering Development Trust and STEMNET on a £200k project geared towards increasing participation and attainment in STEM subjects and encouraging young people to consider engineering as a career option. — The National Science Learning Centre on the delivery of our Science Strategy and the development of a STEM Careers Strategy for the Trust. — The National Centre of Excellence for the Teaching of Mathematics to develop a cohort of 15 NCETM trained Maths Lead Teachers within the Trust. 4.4 Negotiating Preferential Rates—the Trust is able to use its sized and strength to negotiate discounts and preferential rates on behalf of Trust schools. For example, all Trust schools are offered Association of Science Education (ASE) membership at a preferential rate based on a block membership deal negotiated by the Trust. 4.5 Links with business and industry—the Trust engages with a range of businesses and Third Sector organisations to secure their involvement in Trust schools. Individual schools often struggle to secure these relationships independently. Businesses in turn beneﬁt from having a single point of access for contact with schools. Businesses engage with schools in a range of ways including for example: — Work experience and work placements. — Curriculum support and development (delivering sessions/master classes). — Providing guest speakers for events/assembly talks. — Supporting students (Mentoring, career workshops). — Employability skills support (CV writing, mock interviews). — Educational visits. — Sponsorship (providing materials for projects, prizes for event, running competitions).

How highly performing schools could better be encouraged to cooperate with others 5. School to school collaboration within North Tyneside Learning Trust is essentially voluntary. Indeed cooperation is arguably likely to be more meaningful and effective if the relationship in entered into voluntarily. Cooperation should therefore be encouraged rather than enforced through a duty in law in order to preserve the general spirit and ethos on which school to school collaboration is based. There are potential beneﬁts of cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w113

cooperation for all schools (even highly performing schools) therefore perhaps more needs to be done to highlight and promote the two way learning opportunities that exist. Schools should essentially be supported to “drive their own improvement” rather than “forced to cooperate” with an externally imposed approach to improvement.

Whether schools have sufﬁcient incentives to form meaningful and lasting relationships with other schools 6. North Tyneside Learning Trust is now one of the largest Education Trusts in the UK. The success of the model of collaboration adopted by North Tyneside Learning Trust has served to attract new member schools year on year. This suggests a strong and growing commitment to the approach adopted. 7. Other local authority areas have approached North Tyneside Learning Trust for support and information and there are a number of smaller Trusts beginning to emerge based on the collaborative partnership approach pioneered by North Tyneside Learning Trust. 8. Schools have a range of motivations for joining the Trust and there are many potential advantages (as outlined in 4.1–4.5 above) which serve to act as incentives.

If and how the potential tension between school partnership and cooperation, and school choice and competition can be resolved 9. The entire education landscape is changing. The type and range of institutions providing education is changing dramatically. New types of academies are emerging (Free schools, Studio Schools’ University Technical Colleges). This “marketisation” of education presents a real risk of fragmentation. The model adopted by North Tyneside Learning Trust provides some protection against fragmentation. 10. North Tyneside Learning Trust operates on a collaborative model with schools essentially supporting other schools to secure school improvement by sharing skills and expertise. Membership is voluntary and schools joining the Trust essentially adopt the spirit and ethos of the Trust which places collaboration and the interests of local children and young people at the heart of everything we do. 11. Whilst academies have provided a model through which to secure school improvement where systems failure is evident, in areas like North Tyneside where there is no systems failure in terms of results or capacity, sporadic structural changes serve only to destabilize good and outstanding school by creating an unnecessary surplus of provision. 12. On joining North Tyneside Learning Trust partners schools sign up to a number of “key commitments” and this covers their approach to admissions as a Trust school and their new responsibilities as an Employer. Partner schools must agree to work within the national code for admissions and must not seek to individually alter admission arrangements. Similarly all Trust schools commit to honouring national agreements on School Teachers Pay and Conditions. 13. Historically in North Tyneside a very strong collaborative relationship has existed between schools. The creation of North Tyneside Learning Trust essentially provides a formal structure to support long term strategic partnerships between schools, employers, further and higher education partners and planning authorities. There is a strong focus on school to school support in raising standards with an emphasis on schools supported by the Trust to drive their own improvement. Choice and competition exists within a sustainable framework of partnership and co-operation.

Whether converter academies’ requirements to support other schools, included in their funding agreements, are sufﬁcient and are effectively policed 14. There is limited experience of support from converter academies in North Tyneside. The only academy that exists currently is St Thomas More Roman Catholic Academy. The Trust does work in partnership with St Thomas More.

Whether academies sponsored by another school receive sufficient support from their sponsor 15. There are no examples of school sponsored academies in North Tyneside. The Trust does provide financial support to North Tyneside Academy Foundation which supports Grasmere Academy. This has enabled the school to remain working alongside and in partnership with our family of schools and benefit from many of the opportunities, activities and services offered to Trust schools.

Whether school partnerships drive effective school improvement 16. School improvement is a key focus of the work of North Tyneside Learning Trust and sharing skills and expertise is a common feature of school to school collaboration within the Trust. 17. The Trust works in partnership with the Local Authority School Improvement function to complement and enhance school improvement support to Trust schools. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w114 Education Committee: Evidence

18. The Trust has appointed a Primary Maths Lead to increase capacity within this important area of the curriculum and share effective practice across Trust schools. Primary English Leads for each key stage have also been identiﬁed from within Trust schools and seconded by the Trust to work across all school to share skills and experience and increase capacity particularly with our more vulnerable schools. 19. Local and National Leaders of Education from good and outstanding Trust schools have been seconded to increase leadership capacity within more vulnerable schools. Additional teaching support has also been offered to support vulnerable schools in preparation for SATs. Over the past two years one Trust secondary school and six Trust primary schools have moved from an Ofsted rating of satisfactory to good.

Whether there are any additional upsides or downsides for highly performing schools supporting others through partnerships 20. School to school collaboration and support is the key to effective and sustainable school improvement. Schools themselves driving their own improvement with the support of the Trust/good and outstanding schools. Within a collaborative model highly performing schools have a duty to share skills and expertise and often gain valuable learning from the schools they support. Cross phase school partnerships have proven to be particularly effective, in easing transition and accelerating/ensuring continuous progression.

APPENDIX 1 NORTH TYNESIDE LEARNING TRUST MEMBER SCHOOLS Secondary School Partners — Burnside Business College — Churchill Community College — George Stephenson Community High School — John Spence Community High School — Longbenton Community College — Marden High School — Norham High School — Seaton Burn College — Whitley Bay High School — Monkseaton High School*

Special School Partners — Beacon Hill School — Benton Dene — Silverdale School — Southlands School — Woodlawn School

Middle School Partners — Marden Bridge — Monkseaton — Wellﬁeld — Valley Gardens*

First School Partners — Rockcliffe — Appletree Gardens*

Primary School Partners — Amberley Community — Battle Hill Community — Benton Dene — Burradon* — Carville cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Education Committee: Evidence Ev w115

— Denbigh* — Fordley — Forest Hall — Grassmere Academy — Greenﬁelds Community — Hadrian Park — Hazlewood Community — King Edward* — Monkhouse — Redesdale Community — Stephenson Memorial Community — Wallsend Jubilee — Western Community — Westmoor *New schools currently consulting over membership of the Trust and conversion to trust school status.

APPENDIX 2 NORTH TYNESIDE LEARNING TRUST FORMAL EMPLOYER PARTNERS — Balfour Beatty Workplace Ltd (Joint Venture Partner) — Barnardos (Third sector) — Capita Symonds (Joint Venture Partner) — IBM (Digital Technologies) — Kier Construction (Joint Venture Partner) — Nexus (Engineering) — North Tyneside Council (Public Sector) — Northumbria Healthcare Trust/health partners (Health & Care) — Northumbria Police Authority — Procter and Gamble (Science Pathways) — Shasun Pharma (Science Pathways) — Shepherds Offshore (Renewables) — Swan Hunters (Engineering/Marine Design) — Tribal — Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Authority (Public Sector) — North Tyneside VODA (Third Sector)

Further Education (FE) Partners — Newcastle College including associated Higher Education (HE) partners — Tyne Metropolitan College including associated HE Partners

University (HE) Partners — Newcastle University — Northumbria University

Strategic Planning Authority Partners — North Tyneside Council Trustees — Diocesan Authorities

APPENDIX 3 NORTH TYNESIDE LEARNING TRUST BOARD OF DIRECTORS — David Baldwin (Chair & Secondary School Headteacher) — Alison Shaw (Director—Secondary Schools) — Simon Ripley (Director—Special Schools) — Emma Overton (Director—Primary Schools) — Paul Mitchell (Director—Chair of Governors) cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [04-11-2013 10:18] Job: 033724 Unit: PG01

Ev w116 Education Committee: Evidence

— Jane Delaney (Director—HE/FE) — David Hodgson (Director—Employer Partner, Shasun Pharma — Ian Wilkinson (Director—Employer Partner, Capita Symonds) — Ian Grayson (Director—North Tyneside Council, Cabinet Member) October 2013

The Stationery Ofﬁce Limited 11/2013 033724 19585