Four reservations and a welcome

Yesterday (19/01/15) was a busy day for us education policy wonks. We had the new headteacher standards, the long-awaited result of the Carter Review on Initial Teacher Training. Both documents are good pieces of work and in general I welcome what they are saying and the direction in which they they are taking our education system. However, both reports include missed opportunities.

Take the new headteacher standards. They are clear and well written and feel grounded in the reading of leading and running a school. Also welcome is the inclusion of a ‘domain’ of standards on the role of headteachers in creating and supporting a self-improving school system. But, and here comes my first comment or reservation. the standards seem to be complied on the assumption that a headteacher is running an individual stand alone school. In a self-improving school system we are increasingly seeing different models: executive heads overseeing two or three schools or a head of school working to an executive head. We have schools coming together to support teacher other, either for a specific purpose or period – and sometimes permanently. We have head and schools who see their school improvement model in the context of being part of an overarching teaching school alliance or academy trust strategy for improvement. And we have groups of school that define their mission by improving educational outcomes for all school and pupils in their locality. The standards don’t capture the dynamics of what is now developing in many parts of the school system.

Does this omission or oversight matter? Yes, I think it does because we have a long way to go to communicate to and convince governors and parents that different leadership (and governance) models are to be expected and welcomed in a self-improving system.

My second comment relates to the standard that expects headteachers to:

“Challenge educational orthodoxies in the best interests of achieving excellence, harnessing the findings of well evidenced research to frame self-regulating and self- improving schools”

I hope that this statement will encourage heads to look more critically at the evidence on setting of pupils – as highlighted by the OECD in its report (also published on 19th January) on the progress of educational reform in England**

The Carter review on ITT*** also has lots to welcome. I support the concept of having a core curriculum. I like the emphasis on the development of subject knowledge and the understanding of child development. Basic skills relating to classroom behaviour are covered as are the need to develop consistency and excellence in assessment practice. It was also welcome to see the recognition that universities and schools need to work in partnership to deliver a high quality ITT offer.

One key issue was, however, ducked. The amount of content that Carter is expecting to cram into the ITT year is not realistic. In part he recognises this by saying that ITT is ‘Initial’ training and that the first year should be a prelude to further development. For example, the review calls for “funded in-service subject knowledge enhancement courses to be made available for primary teachers”. But would it not have been better to have more explicit about seeing the ITT, the NQT and NQT+1 years as a continuum? Although teachers could be licensed to practise after their initial year would it not invest QTS with greater meaning if it were actually not awarded until new entrants were proficient in all the elements of the curriculum that Carter has identified – i.e. at the end of the third rather than the first year? Such an approach to QTS could also amass credits towards a Masters. Without this change I am not sure we will see a step change in the proficiency and professionalism of our new teachers.

However, the reality is that even had Carter had made such a recommendation it  is unlikely that it would have been accepted because the government, in its response to the review****, could not even agree with giving greater prominence to QTS rather than PGCE. The most astounding, although honest, sentence in the government’s response was this:

“The two coalition parties have different positions on this recommendation. Therefore the Government cannot take this recommendation forward”

Clearly the coalition government has given up any attempt to resolve outstanding policy differences – so it is just as well there is an election coming!

My final reservation also relates to the government response to Carter. A pity that the government’s plans to support the development of teachers’ subject knowledge are, at this point, confined to “maths, physics, chemistry, modern languages, computing and primary maths”. The humanities and arts again overlooked – the government’s list reinforces a narrow and utilitarian view of education.


** See



To partner or not to partner: it’s a no-brainer question for Ofsted

I spend a lot of my time working with school leaders on developing their partnership, teaching school alliance or academy trust. The most frequent question I get asked – especially when schools are at the early stage of thinking about working with other schools – is, “How do I convince my governors that my school won’t lose out if we start supporting or engaging with another school?” The subtext to the question being that governors are worried about the performance of ‘their’ school if the head and/or some of the best teachers begin to spend some of their time and energy supporting other institutions.

Dig beneath the headlines and this week’s Ofsted report contains some interesting insights that are relevant to this question. Essentially Ofsted is arguing that schools that work just within their own bubble are exposing themselves to risk. Ofsted’s examination of the factors that cause schools to decline from outstanding or good to requires improvement or inadequate found that:

“The main problem common to these schools was that the headteacher, who in several cases had recently left, had allowed the school to lose focus on quality – schools had simply drifted along and become out of date. Often, they had not kept up with developments in education and were not challenged sufficiently by governors or their senior team. In several schools, a powerful headteacher had resisted external intervention and also restricted the development of promising senior and middle leaders.”

In short these schools had become closed rather than open institutions. The same trend comes through in Ofsted’s analysis of converter academies: “Too many are working in isolation”. Half of all academies are not part of a multi-academy trust and are “not doing enough to build networks with other schools”. Academies that experienced a sharp fall in inspection grade last year revealed that:

“Most had not made any arrangement for external support and challenge until it was too late and serious decline had set in. The academies in question had an overly optimistic view of their current position.”

Even where some academies were involved in collaboration it was sometimes as a means to “pool resources and save money, rather than as a way of driving up standards”.

Partnership may not be the complete answer to mitigating these risks but there is a strong case for arguing that schools involved in effective collaboration would be less susceptible to them. Ofsted underlines this by providing not just a negative rationale for school partnership, but also including evidence for the positive reasons for doing so. And, significantly for a body that has often been behind the curve in understanding school-to-school working, the report demonstrates an understanding that such partnership is very often multi-dimensional.

“There are examples of schools, particularly primaries, that are now involved in more than one collaboration. Typically, these provide different types of school-to-school support, such as being part of a teaching school alliance, collaborating with a local secondary school or buying business services from another school. These different types of relationship can all benefit schools through sharing of resources and expertise, giving the schools more scope to succeed than would be possible if they worked in isolation.”

Crucially Ofsted emphasises that the partnership dividend applies to a school that already considers itself strong or high performing. Governors should note that collaboration brings benefits not just to the school that a head and other leaders may be supporting, “but to their own school, enriching their staff and the quality of teaching.” I would add to that list that it also aids and accelerates leadership development within the home school.

However, before I am accused of being all dewy-eyed about school-to-school working we also need to note two cautionary notes flagged up by Ofsted that pose challenges for school partnerships.

First, Ofsted notes the limited impact of governor reviews, that the inspectorate recommends when schools are identified as having weak governance. In my experience school partnerships too often bypass or ignore the development of governors. But just as teachers in different schools gain from planning, working with, observing and coaching each other, so can school governors. Sitting on each other’s governor’s meetings, examining how governance practices work in different schools, undertaking joint governor development and peer reviewing each other’s schools are all options that could and should be added to the partnership menu. Governors, every bit as much as school leaders and teachers, need to see and experience what high quality supportive and challenging governance looks like.

Second, partnerships do not of themselves automatically add value. They can be flabby as well as effective. Ofsted observes how many academies that had improved their grade from good to outstanding “had retained external advisers to inform the debate between headteacher and governors about accurate self-evaluation. This injected a crucial reality check to the conversation”.

That principle also applies to school partnerships. Schools working together may lack a sharp cutting edge or at worst become too cosy with each other. While schools may be comfortable in flagging up areas of development for their peers in a partnership to work on, it requires high trust and a really mature collaboration to agree mechanisms that could, for example trigger intervention in one of the schools. Partnerships may also not be as rigorous as they should be in assessing the impact of their joint work together. Using external advisers – often in tandem with peer assessment – can help to keep partnerships honest.

In many ways it is ironic but welcome that at the end of a Parliament which started out with a focus on individual schools and academies we have ended up with an emphasis on partnership, school clusters, federations and multi-academy trusts. The job for schools, policy makers and politicians in the next Parliament will be to sustain the momentum and bring coherence to the efforts to build a self-improving school system.

10 survival principles for school leaders

This blog is by popular demand – well sort of!

On 5th November I was with leaders from the Derby Teaching School Alliance talking about the thinking behind the government’s government’s reforms over the past five years and using my crystal ball to describe some of the challenges they were likely to face over the next five. As well as outlining the key features of a Conservative or Labour-led  education programme, I also talked about the funding, poverty and technology challenges coming down the road and how they might impact on schools.

The final section of the presentation suggested 10 survival principles for school leaders given the volume and intensity of change that they are having to manage. The principles are an updated version of some work I first did for ASCL back in 2007 in a little book called Leadership that lasts. A number of people on Twitter and some of those present in the room have asked me to share the principles. So here we go.

You can find the slides for 10 principles here and below I briefly explain what I mean by each of them.

1. Understand what is happening and why. A key role of school leaders is to explain to their governors and staff why they are having to make change. Leaders may not always or even often agree with reforms they are having to make or policies they are having to introduce but it is always a good idea to understand the thinking that has led to the change. In my experience people feel less ‘done to’ and swamped by change if they are able to engage in the rationale for it. So leaders need to spend a bit of time each week reading a journal or an education blog that will help them keep abreast of current education thinking. Part of a school leader’s job is to help interpret what is happening in the world to those for whom she or he is responsible.

2. Stay rooted in your values and moral purpose. Remember why you came into teaching and what you wanted to achieve when you first moved into a leadership role. Focus on the interests and life chances of your pupils and their families and be constantly inspired and re-invigorated by them. I found it encouraging to see how the Derby Teaching School Alliance has thought through its values and vision and is trying to keep them at the forefront of its thinking in its work.

3. Always have a game plan. The key to managing change effectively is not to be pushed around by external factors. Leaders need a strategy that is right for their school – into which change and externally imposed ‘most-dos’ then fit. The crucial skill for school leaders is to identify when they have extracted most value from their existing strategy and need to change tack to keep their school moving forward (see slide 4). And, as the recent work on outstanding primary leadership led by Peter Matthews has so ably highlighted, the game plan will vary according to where a school is on its improvement journey (see slide 5).

4. Grasp nettles firmly. It’s an obvious point but most hard issues don’t get any easier for being put off. Whether the challenge relates to funding, pupil progress and attainment, staff performance, school behaviour or quality of governance the best leaders will act decisively as soon as they see an issue needs to be addressed.

5. Be open to new ways of working. Externally imposed reform forces us to reconsider and adapt. That is often a good thing – it can help to stimulate innovation and creativity. For example, one of the issues raised at the Derby conference was the growing encouragement for schools to collaborate but the lack of resources to facilitate this. As finances tighten things are not likely to get any easier in this respect. But we don’t have to organise the curriculum and PPA time as we have always organised it – or employ or deploy teaching assistants in the way that we have always done. Schools – including some small primaries in rural areas – are demonstrating how through reassigning roles, reorganising timetables and using technology they can use collaboration to drive improvement in the classroom.

6. Work through structured collaboration. This follows on directly from the previous point. Schools working in clusters – under the umbrella of a teaching school alliance, academy chain, federation or other other formally structured partnership – is the future. You need to be on someone’s team. Yes, there are issues of within-school variation to address but schools are more likely to learn and grow by working with others – especially (the evidence suggests) when there is clear executive leadership to drive, co-ordinate and account for the impact of cross-school working.

7. Stay focused on instructional leadership. The temptation when there is so much change swirling around is for school leaders to retreat into their office and meetings with senior colleagues. The mark of an effective school leader is to ensure there are people and systems able to manage new demands (often much easier if managing change is shared across schools) and stay focused on the quality of the teaching and learning in the classroom. Sometimes, as slide 8 illustrates, this will mean taking an overview of performance though drop-ins and analysing data (sitting in the stands), sometimes it may involve coaching of leaders and staff (on the touchline), sometimes it will require leading development sessions (on the training pitch) and sometimes it mean encouraging a colleague who has had a bad day or week.

8. Empower middle leaders. We know that schools and partnerships that make the most rapid change have equipped and empowered their middle leaders to be the engine room of improvement. I have just come to the end of helping to facilitate an action research project for the National College for Teaching and Leadership on leadership of great pedagogy. One of the key lessons from that is the power of releasing and then supporting middle leaders to lead learning – both within schools and between schools.

9. Embrace joint practice development. Collaboration that is really powerful is centred on improving classroom practice through supporting teachers to work with and learn from each other. Whether that is done through a coaching model, working together on schemes of work and lesson plans, peer-to-reviews and learning walks, lesson study, action research or the deployment of SLEs is less important than the principle of aligning formal and subject specialist training with improving practice in the classroom.

10. Communicate, communicate, communicate. John Dunford, a former head and general secretary of ASCL, used to say that school leadership was about 90% communication. I am not sure of the evidence basis for this – but I know exactly what he is getting at. Leadership is about motivating and engaging the team – including pupils, parents and governors – to come with you on the improvement journey. So communicating your expectations (your vision) and your plan for how you are going to get there (strategy) and explaining  why change – whether it is being internal or external driven – are vital. As politicians know reinforcing key messages is essential – keep on explaining and explaining. And, of course, communication has to be two-way – listening to feedback and ideas and adjusting the game plan where necessary.

Primary Focus is on target

Primary Focus* could be viewed as just another report from another think tank about the future of education. But in my view it is more significant than this.

The report calls for all primary schools to be ‘spun’ out from their local authority and for them to choose an academy chain to join.

I can hear the groans all round the staff rooms: yet more policy wonks proposing yet more structural upheaval. That is a perfectly reasonable reaction – and the onus is on those proposing the upheaval to justify it convincingly.

But I think Policy Exchange has made that case. The report argues that moving all primary schools into being part of a formal (academy) grouping represents:

“The best way in which to drive greater strategic capacity and capability in the primary sector. It achieves this by establishing collaborative practices around teaching and learning, by supporting teachers and individual school leaders to focus on what happens in classrooms, and by supporting a culture of continuous improvement and development. In turn, these actions improve outcomes.”

I have been arguing this cause for some years – but that’s not the only reason I welcome the report. The report is significant because it is written by grown-ups. What I mean by that is that although the report originates from Policy Exchange – a right of centre think tank – its recommendations take account of thinking and proposals coming from the Labour Party and others in the education world. The report is not partisan or ideological but draws on thinking from a number of quarters to confront an issue that has been fudged and fumbled (by governments of both parties) for too long.

So although under the proposals primary schools would become separate from local authorities, LAs can choose to set up their own arms length chain or learning trust (echoing some of the thinking in the Blunkett report prepared for Tristram Hunt).

The report recognises that the process of creating a network of primary chains will require steering and joining up – either by Regional Schools Commissioners or – with another nod in the direction of Labour thinking – Directors of Schools Standards.

The report allows schools to change chains – another idea that has been gaining currency. But again there are sensible conditions that would avoid destabilising chains.

The report is mature enough to accept that academy chains do not have the monopoly of wisdom and are not the only school improvement game in town. So the continuing complementary role of teaching of teaching school alliances is also affirmed.

If I have an issue with the report it is the chapter that strives mightily to try and show how structures beget standards. For myself I think the evidence on the performance of academies and academy chains is, at this stage, stretched too far. For me the better argument to make is that we know that school-to-school collaboration can deliver great value and we need to focus more on understanding the conditions that make for effective collaboration. Formalised accountability arrangements and executive leadership – which are what academy trusts provide – are important and necessary but by themselves are not sufficient drivers of successful school partnerships.

So while seeking to create an infrastructure that will result in the creation of primary school chains across England we should also attend to the other preconditions for the successful development and operation of academy chains. And that thought provides a further incentive for me to write the next section of the page of my blog dedicated to effective academy chains**!


** See

Gove’s end of term report

It has been an interesting period to have Michael with us. He has brought lots of enthusiasm and fresh ideas. Introducing free schools, enabling primary schools to become academies, reworking the accountability system for secondary schools and giving heads and governors more say in the performance management of their staff all demonstrated a boldness of thinking. His passionate commitment to social mobility and his espousal of the Pupil Premium were also widely welcomed.

However, Michael must learn to think harder about his plans before rushing to implement them. For example, some of the problems of the helter-skelter expansion of academy chains could have been avoided if he had adopted the checks and balances which his colleague, Lord Nash, has introduced. Free schools would have caused less dissent and represented better value for money if they had always been linked to the pressing demand for school places. Primary academy status from the start should only been available on a cluster of schools rather than individual school basis. School Direct has a lot to commend it as a way of giving schools a greater stake in recruiting and training teachers but its implementation has been fraught with difficulties. What is more in each case Michael was warned in advance about the problems.

Michael rightly challenged us to raise the bar in terms of standards and attainment but he failed to get a balance between equipping students with the skills as well as the knowledge they need to be rounded and successful 21st century citizens.

Although Michael comes from a Conservative family he found it hard to resist the temptation for the state to control everything. From the curriculum, to the content of examinations, to deciding which free schools should be allowed to open, to dictating which schools must become academies Michael has demonstrated a centralising and authoritarian streak. Agencies – such as the National College for School Leadership – that represented an independent voice in education improvement – have been emasculated. Michael’s treatment of Baroness Morgan and the handling of the Birmingham ‘Trojan Horse’ allegations called into question Ofsted’s independence. This statist stance is all the more ironic given Michael’s criticisms of his predecessors.

Michael was very committed to introducing a school system where headteachers and groups of schools led and drove improvement – a self sustaining and improving system was his aim. Academy chains, teaching schools and the expansion of national, local and specialist leaders of education were the vanguard in driving this change. But his failure to incentivise or recognise collaborative working through the inspection and accountability systems and his refusal to enforce partnership on outstanding converter academies undermined his strategic goal. In addition Michael’s stubborn refusal to countenance any significant role for local authorities in steering and joining up the different bits of the school improvement landscape, coupled with the creation of a parallel school commissioner system for overseeing academies, has left us with a fragmented system for securing progress for every pupil in every school. In short Michael tried very hard and produced lots of work. But overall his actions lacked the strategic coherence necessary to deliver his declared objective.

On a personal level Michael has demonstrated considerable personal charm. This skill will stand him in good stead in his new role but he must resist the temptation to patronise those he does not value or agree with. His characterisation of school governors as sherry drinking, cake-slicing, Kumbaya-singing local worthies was not only inaccurate but gratuitously (and unnecessarily) offensive. Such an attitude can be symptomatic of the terminal political disease that comes to afflict many senior politicians – hubris. The political world will be a duller place if Michael succumbs to this condition too soon.




The Blunkett Review – making it a reality

David Blunkett’s ‘Review of education structures, functions and the raising of standards for all’ is a significant document. It highlights and reinforces the weaknesses of the current mishmash of arrangements for overseeing the development and improvement of all schools. More significantly, for the purposes of this blog post, it provides a real sense of direction about the likely shape of Labour’s education policy and priorities a year out from next year’s general election.

A strong welcome

Blunkett’s proposals offer the opportunity to bring coherence to school improvement. The principle of school autonomy remains – not a surprise really since Blunkett did much to affirm the autonomy of schools when he was Secretary of State for Education: substantially raising the level of financial delegation to schools. But the vision is for autonomy to operate within a context of partnership and collaboration. Getting this balance right is strengthened by David’s recognition that the actions of one school can impact on another. Education improvement has to be more than a zero sum game – we need all schools in every area to move forward. So the plans to amend schools admissions, enforcement and appeals procedures and integrate place planning are welcome. And (hallelujah!) there is a single framework for overseeing the progress and development of all schools – irrespective of their type or status.

The document also contains some innovative ideas. For example, encouraging and enabling academies to move in and out of chains to bring greater geographical coherence. Or focusing funding agreements on outcomes and renewing them every three of five years – as recommend by the RSA/Pearson Academies’ Commission. The proposals for commissioning new school places rightly maintain a strong competitive ethos but bring coherence to a system which in many areas has been thrown into chaos by the ad hoc establishment of free schools. The creation of Education Incubation Zones would encourage the education system to continue to evolve in order to meet the changing demands of 21st century society.

Three caveats

I have three reservations about the proposals. I can see the case for kitemarking the supply of major school improvement providers – though I am not convinced that the market is broke. A better way forward might be for the kitemarking to be a voluntary arrangement in the first instance.

I also wish that the review had grasped the nettle of clarifying the role of the Office of Schools Commissioner and making it a statutory independent function. There is case for a revamped Schools Commissioner role to include the functions of the Schools’ Adjudicator – thus creating a single regulatory focus.

The approach towards the Pupil Premium is also slightly worrying. Yes, there is evidence that not all the money is being well used at present. But we are on a journey here. The role of the Education Endowment Foundation, the impact of the Ofsted inspection regime, the role of John Dunford as the Pupil Premium champion and the work of a good number of local authorities means that the additional funding is increasingly being better targeted and used. There is a growing focus on impact, so we should be wary of making major changes to the system at this point.

Be prepared

What does Labour need to do next? The Party must learn from its experience of coming into government in 1997. More was achieved more quickly in those policy areas where the detailed policy thinking and work had been done in advance. So having produced this paper Labour cannot rest on its laurels. Here are five ideas on some next steps the Party might take:

  1. Develop its education narrative – the Blunkett reforms are right but they need to be communicated in a way that parents, the media and the wider public can understand. Simple key messages might be:
  • Schools improve at a faster rate when they work together
  • Pupils enjoy better learning when teachers have the opportunity to work with staff from other schools on planning and reviewing lessons
  • There needs to be a fair and level playing field when it comes to admitting pupils to schools and assessing how well schools are improving
  • Supporting schools to improve is best organised locally rather than being decided by Whitehall Ministers and officials
  1. Draft instructions to counsel – for those not familiar with the Whitehall policymaking process this means preparing a policy document that enables the specialist lawyers to prepare a Bill for Parliament. This would provide a discipline for Labour to define the role and powers of the Director of Schools Standards (DSS) and the education panels that would support them. It would also help to think through how the proposed public duty for local authorities, schools and other providers to cooperate with the DSS in brokering collaboration would work.
  1. Consult with the Local Government Association on the new school oversight arrangements – particularly in relation to potential groupings of local authorities and relations between a DSS and constituent authorities. I don’t take the view – put forward by Jonathan Simons and Sam Freedman on Twitter – that local authorities are being completely written out of the script. As suggested in the Blunkett review it might make sense to take the boundaries of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) as the starting point – since this would help to integrate work on careers advice and post-16 provision. However, there are already some groupings of education authorities developing – particularly in London – and so there is also scope to explore whether these might provide a basis for some of the new arrangements.
  1. Set up some demonstration models – it might be possible for local groups of Labour local authorities such as in Manchester (where local authorities and schools have a strong history of working together collaboratively on school improvement) to appoint a DSS in a shadow form. However, any such scheme might be stymied if the Government’s formally appointed Regional Commissioner for overseeing academies refused to collaborate with the initiative.

Where authorities could progress the Blunkett agenda without hindrance would be encouraging the creation of Community Trusts for groups of primary schools. Several authorities have already or are currently working with their schools on forming local clusters. Legislation relating to Trust schools is already on the statute book and so the organizational vehicle is there to create formal groupings of primary schools. The only restraint is that it is difficult for voluntary aided faith schools to be formally part of such a Trust – because they are already a Trust. This needs discussion with church representatives – we should be encouraging faith schools to work with other local schools rather than just retreat into faith-based academy chain enclaves.

  1. Assess the costs – the coalition will no doubt try and dub the proposals as bureaucratic and costly. But the Blunkett plan would be able to build on the savings made from scrapping the regional Commissioner posts. There are also substantial resources going into employing a small army of civil servants and brokers who are monitoring, tracking and, where necessary, intervening in the 3,000 plus academies. These costs need to captured and quantified. It might also be possible to make savings from the Education Funding Agency budget. The more transparent financial regime advocated by Blunkett allied with the adoption of prudential corporate governance practices could reduce the need for the extensive financial monitoring that the government has put in place.

And for its next trick…

The Blunkett review marks a big step forward in Labour’s thinking. For its next trick it might want to think about how to turn the Ofsted regime (which has become an excessively high stakes regime) into something that retains rigour but is more supportive of school development!

Partnership working among small primary schools – 10 lessons x 3

My post earlier this week summarised the findings from the CfBT report on partnership working among small rural primary schools see

Below I have listed from the report the 10 lessons that schools, local authorities and policymakers need to respectively address if partnership  is to become a more systemic and powerful driver of improvement across the primary school system.

Ten lessons for schools

1. Build on existing partnerships and relationships – partnership grows out of partnership.

2. Keep partnerships geographically focused – distance inhibits the frequency and intensity of schools’ joint work.

3. Develop strong headteacher relationships, shared values and commitment by meeting regularly, visiting one another’s schools, phoning and emailing frequently and welcoming new headteachers to a partnership school.

4. Be clear about governance arrangements, funding and accountability, and involve governors in school-to-school development and training.

5. Ensure that the leadership of partnerships reaches down to involve middle leaders and coordinators.

6. Use action plans to prioritise and clarify what partnerships will do together.

7. Focus partnership activity on improving teaching and learning through teacher-to-teacher and pupil-to-pupil engagement and learning – including the use of digital contact between staff and pupils.

8. Focus any dedicated resources on providing dedicated leadership or project management time to organise activity and/or cover transport costs.

9. Be prepared to engage in multi-partnership activity and for the form and membership of partnerships to evolve over time.

10. Monitor and evaluate the impact of partnership activity.

Ten lessons for local authorities

Lincolnshire is far from being the only shire county or local authority to promote partnership programmes. Learning from Lincolnshire and other authorities suggests that effective strategies cover the following ten areas.

1. Provide a clear vision of the future in terms of school-to-school working.

2. Be flexible about the structural arrangements for partnerships but encourage a direction of travel that moves to more structured arrangements – and formalise the arrangement, whatever form it takes.

3. Expand the use of executive headship, using soft influence and hard levers (for example, intervening when schools are failing or struggling to recruit a new headteacher) to reinforce the growth of local clusters and the recruitment and retention of high quality school leaders.

4. Insist on schools agreeing on measures of progress and success – which they track and monitor.

5. Focus any allocation of ring-fenced resources on providing some dedicated leadership or (startup) project management time to coordinate partnership activity and/or cover transport costs.

6. Reinforce a partnership strategy by the way that other policies on areas such as children’s services and place planning are framed and implemented.

7. Use simple practical initiatives to help foster partnership depth – such as time at headteachers’ briefings for cluster heads to work together, appointing the same professional link adviser to all the schools in a partnership and enabling partnerships to jointly procure CPD.

8. Identify headteachers to champion the strategy, build ownership among their peers and provide a guiding coalition for change.

9. Support networking and communication between schools and partnerships through newsletters, micro-websites and conferences.

10. Stick with the initiative – recognising that elements of the programme will evolve and that the full benefit will take time to come through.

Ten lessons for policymakers

1. Set a clear, consistent vision and strategy for primary schools – and small primary schools in particular – to work together in small clusters but without being prescriptive on the form it should

2. Recognise in the way that policies are developed that schools are likely to engage in partnership with other schools on a number of different levels.

3. Affirm the role of local authorities in steering and enabling clusters to develop and grow.

4. Work with faith bodies to encourage and facilitate cross-church/community school partnerships.

5. Aim to develop 3,000–4,000 executive leaders of primary schools and provide a career path and training and development to match this ambition.

6. Encourage governors to work and train together across clusters, and encourage moves towards exercising governance at cluster level through federations, trusts and multi-academy trusts.

7. Reinforce the strategy of cluster working by enabling school forums to allocate lump sums to clusters as well as to individual schools.

8. Communicate the value of partnership working to parents and the wider world in order to provide more support for the efforts of small schools in developing partnerships.

9. Ensure that the accountability regime balances the competitive pressures among schools to recruit pupils with measures that value partnership working.

10. Evaluate the impact of partnership working at national level and provide tools to help schools assess the impact of partnership initiatives.

Small can be beautiful (and very effective)

“The primary responsibility for improvement should rest with schools themselves” – that was the clear underpinning theme of the coalition government’s White Paper in 2010, The importance of teaching.

Many of the policies rolled out over the past four years reflect this philosophy. The growth of existing academy chains, the promotion of new academy sponsors, the roll-out of teaching schools, the expansion in the numbers of national and local leaders of education, the introduction of specialist leaders of education and the development of School Direct are all initiatives designed to strengthen the capacity of schools to support their own improvement.

The challenge of small schools

But relatively little thought has been given to how this agenda affects small primary schools – particularly those in rural areas. Nearly a quarter of the 16,700 primary schools in England have fewer than 150 pupils and 1,400 have fewer than 75.

Small schools bring a range of benefits. For example, leaders and staff know each pupil well and are able to engage regularly with parents about each child’s personal development. In terms of school improvement it is easy for staff to work together to plan curriculum changes and implement improvement strategies. It is also quicker and easier for leaders to know what is happening in every classroom, to identify and resolve problems and ‘pop in’ to help sort things out.

But small schools also have a distinct set of challenges. Recruitment of good senior leaders is hard. Heads often have to spend more time teaching and carrying out administrative tasks, squeezing out time for leading the development of staff. Small schools can also become very isolated and find it difficult to release staff for professional development activity. Evidence also shows that one or two weak teachers has a disproportionate effect in a three- or four-teacher school

The case for partnership clusters

The growth of academisation and the advent of teaching schools will not by themselves address these problems. Although academy groups of small schools can be successful and viable, diseconomy of scale works against this as a solution for the whole sector. Similarly some teaching school alliances are embracing rural schools but the distribution and reach of teaching schools currently falls a long way short of providing a systemic answer.

However, a more obvious straightforward and proven solution is available. For some time I have argued that the government should, as a deliberate act of policy, encourage and incentivise all primary schools to work together in organised local clusters. This would result in the primary sector being led through 4,000 executive heads rather than nearly 17,000 individual school leaders.

A number of local authorities in shire areas have effectively adopted this approach. A research project commissioned by CfBT Education Trust, which I undertook in autumn last year in partnership with NfER, provided an opportunity to see if such strategy was making a difference

The Lincolnshire approach

In Lincolnshire CfBT Education Trust has provided all the school improvement services for the county council since 2002. In 2012 CfBT decided to move from using an opportunistic approach to developing federations and executive headship to a more strategic partnership programme.

After a false start, when it came up with a scheme that school leaders and governors considered was too rigid, CfBT switched to a more enabling strategy. All small schools were grouped in clusters, with each school receiving pump-priming funding of £20,000 when the cluster had agreed its priorities for action and confirmed in a binding written agreement how it was going to work together and govern itself.

Most of the cluster partnerships were informal but there were also some that were more structured, with the schools in federations or primary academy trusts. Partnership activity has included sharing data and information on performance, continuing and joint professional development, developing middle leaders, joint programmes and events for pupils, school business management and governor development.

The trend over time has been towards partnerships working together more deeply. In a number of cases schools are moving from collaborating on ad hoc initiatives to agreeing and working to a shared improvement plan for their schools. There were also examples of schools sharing out the leadership of subjects and specialisms across their schools.

We found that federations and academy trusts were more likely to employ executive heads, deploy staff across schools, have joint leadership teams and use common systems in areas such as data tracking classroom observations and procurement.

In terms of impact, the performance of small rural schools in Lincolnshire has improved significantly over the past two years – as measured by performance in Key Stage 2 tests, the number of primary schools below the government’s floor target and the outcome of Ofsted inspections. Of course, not all of the improvement can necessarily be attributed to partnership work. Schools’ individual efforts and the actions of CfBT on behalf of the local authority have also been instrumental. However, analysis of Ofsted reports and feedback from heads and governors indicates that collaborative effort has also been a strong contributory factor

Partnership working has also been hugely beneficial in two other ways. First, it is developing a sustainable leadership model for small rural schools by providing incentives for the most able leaders to stay working in relatively small schools. They are able to realise their ambitions through taking on the leadership of other schools – rather than moving on to a bigger school after a couple of years. Moreover as heads lead more than one school they are developing, deploying and growing the next generation of leaders.

Second, school governance has benefited from the partnership programme as governors have been able to meet, train together and observe different ways of working.

Lessons for others

The research report identifies how to build on the Lincolnshire approach to make partnership between small schools working a driver for improvement across the school system. You can find the respective 10 lessons for schools, local authorities and policy makers at (, but over the next few days I’ll also post these lessons on this blog.

E-ACT and four challenges for DfE

In the light of the announcement that E-ACT is ‘handing back’ 10 of its academies, there are four important challenges for the DfE and government ministers.

First, will the process for allocating the new schools to new sponsors be open and transparent? The pupils, families and staff in those academies deserve to have the best educational support. Some of the problems with over-rapid expansion of academy chains occurred because the Department appeared to acquiesce in awarding academies to favoured sponsors. The process for the 10 E-ACT academies finding a new home needs to be swift but also robust and open – with a premium on the capacity of sponsors being able to make a real difference to the schools.

Second, what judgement has been made of the longer-term capacity of E-ACT to become an effective academy sponsor. Do the changes leave the chain in a better shape – in terms of the geographical configuration of their academies, their central capacity, their financial health and their school improvement model – to be a more effective chain? Or has E-ACT just lost the schools with which they were struggling the most with the chain still lacking coherence and long-term viability?

Third, in the light of this action in respect E-ACT (and, potentially, AET?) what possible reason is there for not publishing statistics on the performance of academy chains? The government has made much of all the schools data that it has put in the public domain but fails to publish (even though it collates and analyses) the progress and value added by academy chains.

Fourth, will the DfE manage to avoid taking and applying the wrong lessons from the E-ACT experience to other chains? Some of the academies being targeted by the DfE have been academies for a good while and intervention in these cases may well be justified. However, if the Department is too zealous in expecting dramatic improvement there is a risk that it will a) put sponsors off applying to take on some of the toughest schools and b) lead to action action being focused on short term gains rather at the expense of the deeper seated reforms that these schools often need. There needs to be at least a three to five year trajectory for improvement discussed and agreed with  sponsors when they take on a school. And that trajectory should be made public. The criteria for success and the rate of progress to be expected would then be open for all to see. 

However, despite these challenges the problems of E-ACT do not sound the death-knell of academy chains. Chains founded round strong schools with clear geographical coherence, deploying and developing high calibre leaders and practising a shared approach to improving teaching and learning, still represent a good way for the school system to develop. The task is to ensure all chains are developing and working to these sound principles. 

Quality not quantity is the litmus test for academy chain expansion

This week Toyota had to issue yet another recall – this time for 1.9 million Prius vehicles. Quite a blow for the company that has the concept of Kaizen – continuous improvement – at the heart of is approach to design and manufacture. Analysts say that Toyota’s problems date back to a decade or so ago when it decided to become the world’s biggest car maker in the world. The company achieved its aim but at the price of running into quality issues.

The successes and travails of Toyota are a long way from the development of academy chains – but there are some parallels.  Those chains that have gone for growth and expanded the most rapidly have been the ones to struggle. The quantity of academies has seemingly trumped the quality of school improvement. In three years some chains went from having ten or a dozen academies in their chain to having 30, 40 or, in one case 70. Not surprisingly they have run into problems. The Department for Education (DfE) is issuing edicts telling chains they have to up their game (particularly in those academies where the chain has failed to make an impact), while Ofsted is inspecting chains with the highest concentration of underperforming academies.

A predictable and predicted scenario

What makes the situation worse is that the problems were not only predictable but were predicted. In the 2012 report on academy chains commissioned by the National College, that I and a group of colleagues from Isos researched, we very clearly identified both the advantages and the risks of academy expansion (see table below).

The advantages of expanding academy chains The risks from expanding academy chains
  • Extends the chain’s impact in terms of raising standards of education for more young people
  • Creates a broader base for developing leaders
  • Increases the scope for sharing learning, subject specialisms, school improvement expertise and CPD
  • Provides more opportunities for staff deployment and promotion within the chain
  • Increases economies of scale in the running of central services and provides greater purchasing power
  • Opens up new opportunities to build new primary/secondary curriculum and transition model
  • Enables central costs to be shared across a larger number of schools
  • Provides a bigger platform for supporting innovation
  • Provides a stronger brand to attract parents and applications for admission
  • Damage to the reputation of the chain as one of the (new) academies gets into difficulties or improvement proves very intractable
  • Too many new schools are taken on at one time and there is insufficient leadership capacity to manage the challenge
  • The chain reacts to having more academies by becoming more bureaucratic and a more rules-based organization
  • Diseconomies of scale start to emerge – for example, communication becomes much harder and it is difficult to keep everyone informed and involved across all the academies in the chain
  • The core infrastructure (central services) becomes overstretched
  • Existing schools in the chain start to slip back as energies are focused on new joiners
  • The growth in the number of academies makes the chain impersonal, eg key senior and middle leaders and staff don’t really know each other

Source: Hill et al, (2012), The growth of academy chains: implications for leaders and leadership, National College for School Leadership

Lessons from US Charter school chains

We also highlighted the experience of Chartered Management Organisations (CMOs – the equivalent of academy chains in the United States) that were being much more cautious in their growth strategies. In the US CMOs considered that opening three to five new schools a year constituted aggressive growth. On average, CMOs with four or more schools were opening no more than one new school a year for the first six years. After seven years of operation, the average pace picked up to approximately two new schools a year. After 10 years they had on average 13 schools in their chain. The rate of growth was slower for smaller CMO chains.

Some academy chains in England – the Cabot Learning Federation and the Outwood academies – have broadly followed that path. Similarly Harris and ARK, although they have grown to having 27 academies each, have done so over a decade or more.

Unregulated growth

The DfE largely ignored the National College report because it was more concerned with expanding the number of sponsored academies. For  nearly three years years after it came to power the government continued to throw schools at the largest sponsors with little assessment of a chain’s capacity to take on schools with demanding and entrenched school improvement challenges. In addition the ‘award’ of schools to chains was, to say the least, an opaque process. One of the common complaints we heard during research for our 2102 study was from chains committed to making a fundamental difference to the schools they took on. They were aggrieved: they felt that they were being penalized when presenting comprehensive plans for dealing with the root cause of a school’s weakness. Governors and local authorities were opting for softer options from chains that were flavor of the month and the DfE was acquiescing in the process.

The most mature chains were wise and confident enough to grow at their own pace and in accordance with their own strategy. They took active steps to manage the risks – and were prepared to say ‘No’ to the Departmental brokers if they felt that a particular academy was not right for their chain.

The chains that went for an aggressive expansion strategy also share the blame for the problems they are now wrestling with. They ignored, as did Michael Gove, the need to create or use geographical clusters as the basis of their expansion. They failed to practise thorough due diligence in terms of bottoming the scale of the liability and challenge of the schools they were taking over.

A change of tack

The  appointment of Lord Nash as academies ministers and the introduction of new advisers in the DfE brought a change of tack. Interestingly the application of lessons from the corporate sector has been at the root of their revised approach. Restrictions have been placed on the further growth of some chains. There is now a much thorough assessment of a chain’s resources and capacity to improve a school before it is allowed to acquire it. There is a much greater emphasis on chains having geographical coherence and strong governance. Grants have been provided to small chains to help them build up their capacity.

Another sensible policy shift has seen the encouragement of a whole plethora of new sponsors – particularly amongst outstanding schools. In other words growing chains through having more of them – rather than creating mega chains. In January 2014 the DfE’s approved academy sponsor list had 558 names on it – most of them schools. Whether the Department is being as rigorous as it should be in assessing and approving sponsors is another matter.

Top tips

Many of these fledgling chains are now looking to grow for the reasons set out in the chart above. But as they seek to do so we need to avoid a repeat of the problems that some of their big brothers have encountered. Here are my top tips for measured academy growth:

  • Be clear about the vision and the core and values of the chain
  • Develop a medium-term business strategy that balances the desire to achieve economy of scale with the capacity to absorb schools into the chain
  • Ensure there is a clear understanding of how to undertake school improvement that is shared across the chain
  • Prioritise the development of teaching and learning across academies in the chain and empower staff and students to lead this – in other words attend to what Jim Collins calls ‘the primary flywheel’ of the chain’s core business
  • Maintain a clear geographical focus and work through clusters of academies of no more than four or five overseen by an executive leader
  • Deploy emerging and senior leaders (and other staff with specific expertise) across academies in order to grow a broad leadership talent pool
  • Recruit high calibre governors – both as directors/trustees of the chain and on local governing bodies
  • Encourage good and outstanding schools that share the chain’s values to join in order to boost the critical mass of school improvement expertise within the chain
  • Track performance closely and intervene early where there are problems
  • Agree the relationship between the corporate centre of the chain and individual academies on the operation of policies and the delivery of  back office functions, systems and services
  • Conduct a thorough due diligence exercise before sponsoring or taking on another school
  • Consider appointing an organisational coach to help the chain mature