Independent-State School Partnerships An initial review of ... · schools and wider partnerships. We also know something of the mechanisms by which such benefits are most likely to

Bill Lucas, Louise Stoll, Toby Greany, Anna Tsakalaki and Rebecca Nelson

Independent-State School Partnerships

An initial review of evidence and current practices

This study was commissioned by The Tony Little Centre for Innovation and Research in Learning at Eton College.

ISBN: 978-0-9571653-1-1

© Eton College 2017

Independent-State School Partnerships: An initial review of evidence and current practices can be downloaded from www.etoncollege.com/CIRLResearch.aspx

The University of Winchester is a values-driven institution with a mission to educate, to advance knowledge and to serve the common good. The Centre for Real-World Learning is an acclaimed research group focusing on the development of capabilities for lifelong learning.

UCL Institute of Education is a world-leading centre for education and related social science. The London Centre for Leadership in Learning is the UK’s largest Higher Education centre for research, development and teaching in educational leadership, innovation and impact.

About the study team

Bill Lucas is Professor of Learning and Director of the Centre for Real-World Learning at the University of Winchester. His research interests centre on creativity, pedagogic leadership and the use of teacher enquiry to improve outcomes for learners (via the Expansive Education Network). Bill is currently advising the OECD on PISA’s 2021 innovative domain test and on the development of creative thinking and the State of Victoria on the assessment of capabilities.

Louise Stoll is Professor of Professional Learning at the UCL Institute of Education and a freelance researcher and international consultant. Her research, development and evaluation activity focus on how systems create capacity for learning, with an emphasis on professional learning communities, leadership development, and connecting research and practice. She is advising the OECD on its Transforming Schools into Learning Organisations initiatives. Toby Greany is Professor of Leadership and Innovation at the UCL Institute of Education and Director of the London Centre for Leadership in Learning. Between 2005 and 2006

he was Special Advisor to the Education and Skills Select Committee and for seven years he was Director of Research and Policy at the National College for School Leadership. Toby’s research is in professional development, school to school partnerships and school and system leadership.

Anna Tsakalaki is a Teaching Fellow at the Institute of Education, University of Reading and the Researcher-in-Residence at the Tony Little Centre for Innovation and Research in Learning at Eton College. Her current research activities focus on connecting educational research and day-to-day teaching practice. Anna has worked on projects exploring innovation in learning, inclusive education, development of learning skills, professional development and home-school collaboration.

Rebecca Nelson is a Research Associate at the UCL Institute of Education. Her career has included teaching, working in a senior role for a local authority and project leadership at UCL Institute of Education. She has supported colleagues on a wide variety of research projects through the preparation of literature reviews, in fieldwork, and in report writing.

The team would like to thank Jonnie Noakes and Tom Arbuthnott from Eton College and Julie Robinson, General Secretary of the Independent Schools Council, for their help.

1Independent-State School Partnerships An initial review of evidence and current practices

Contents

Executive Summary 3

1. Introduction 4

1.1 Context 4

1.2 Establishing a better understanding of Independent-State School Partnerships 4

1.3 The approach 4

2. What does the evidence tell us about school partnerships? 5

2.1 A range of school partnerships 5

2.2 Independent-State School Partnerships – purposes, types and nature of activity 6

2.3 Independent-State School Partnerships – enablers and barriers 7

2.4 Other school-to-school partnerships – successes and challenges 7

2.5 Impact of partnerships 8

2.6 Partnerships bridging cultural divides 9

2.7 Towards a framework for understanding Independent-State School Partnerships 10

2.8 Conclusions 10

3. What is the current scope of Independent-State School Partnerships? 11

3.1 About the independent sector and this survey 11

3.2 About the respondents 11

3.3 Types of partnership and how they are organised 11

3.4 Focus of partnership activity 12

3.5 Perceived impact of partnership activity 14

3.6 Perceived challenges to partnership activity 16

3.7 Conclusions 17

4. Next steps for learning about Independent-State School Partnerships 18

References 19

Appendix 1 – Overview of study methods 21

Literature review 21

Survey of independent schools 21

Appendix 2 – Independent-State School Partnerships survey questions 22

Appendix 3 – Selected survey results 24

2 Independent-State School Partnerships An initial review of evidence and current practices

Executive Summary

Over the last two decades there has been growing interest in independent-state school partnerships (ISSPs). The term is currently used to refer to arrangements between two or more schools which include at least one independent and one state school. In this review of literature and snap-shot of current practices we look at the state of the evidence.

ISSPs are a relatively recent creation and, unsurprisingly, we find:

a) little evidence of the ways in which they do or do not impact on outcomes in England, not least because of a paucity of research, and

b) an array of initiatives, collaborations and associations with no clear rationale in terms of good practices and, as yet, limited evaluation.

Nevertheless, from the more robust literature of school to school partnerships in the UK and internationally, we know that there can be significant benefits for pupils, teachers, schools and wider partnerships. We also know something of the mechanisms by which such benefits are most likely to be secured. However, we recognise that ISSPs must bridge cultural divides and might have success criteria that differ from partnerships between state schools, so we also review literature on partnerships that encompass such divides. Drawing on this literature, we suggest some potential features that we might expect to see in successful ISSPs.

From a survey of current practices reported by independent schools we can see growing interest in ISSPs. These partnerships generally aim to promote academic and social enrichment, enable the sharing of resources and/or foster professional learning for staff.

From our brief review, we suggest a need for:

• clarity about the extent and depth of engagement by both state and independent schools in ISSPs and the potential benefits to both

• better understanding of the different kinds of ISSPs and how these can best be created, shared, led and evaluated

• formal evaluation of the impact of ISSPs on state schools and independent schools and on their pupils, staff, parents and wider community

• greater understanding about the potential wider benefits to society when state and independent schools collaborate effectively.

We suggest three practical next steps:

1. Conducting a comprehensive impact evaluation of ISSPs, including a survey of state schools as well as more detailed analysis of case studies.

2. Translating the information presented in sections 2 and 3 of this report into practical leadership tools and an evaluation framework which can then be piloted and developed with a sample of ISSPs.

3. Working with school leaders, teachers and membership bodies from both sectors to define with further clarity the processes which are central to successful ISSPs, specifically to explore the idea of shared spaces to bridge cultural divides.


1. Introduction

‘At their best, partnerships can generate enthusiasm and motivation for learning,

cultivate an openness to new thinking and ideas, [and] inspire a desire for positive

change, locally and globally.’

Building Successful School Partnerships, Oxfam

Schools have always had collaborations or associations with other schools to a greater or lesser extent. These can be influenced by, for example, the interests of school leaders, the availability of resources and the degree to which the educational policy framework and culture are collaborative or competitive. School partnerships can take many different forms, with independent-state school partnerships (ISSPs) being a relatively recent label to describe a sub-set of this larger idea. For the purpose of this review, we have defined partnerships as:

‘any deliberate collaboration or association of two or more schools, whether formal or informal, short or long-term, wide-ranging or focused.’

1.1 Context

In England, with the publication of the Green Paper Schools that work for everyone in 2016, there has been increased interest in ISSPs. In particular, the Department for Education (DfE) has explicitly sought to explore the role which independent schools can play in improving outcomes for students beyond their own institutions, ‘to harness the capacity of independent schools to offer greater benefit to ordinary families’.

In the same year, a collaboration was established between the DfE and the Independent Schools Council (ISC) to find out more about the kinds of ISSPs which are already underway and to support those who are leading them. The Schools Together website was created as a focal point of this relationship. It currently shows some 1700 partnership projects spread across England.

1.2 Establishing a better understanding of Independent-State School Partnerships

In February 2017 Eton invited an independent team of researchers to undertake a rapid review of the extent of current activity and the existence of any evidence of impact. This work took place in the months of March and April 2017. The results are summarised in this report.

1.3 The approach

The study had three elements – a review of literature and a survey of current practices from the perspective of independent schools, undertaken in parallel, followed by an expert review and synthesis of these two sources of data. In doing this, we have taken a broad conception of possible impact from ISSPs, ranging from academic outcomes and school improvement, to individual well-being and issues such as community cohesion. More information about our approach to the study and its limitations can be found in Appendix 1.

This rapid overview aims to provide an initial analysis of data which can inform a more comprehensive study. We make recommendations for the scope of such a piece of research, which could explore the nature and impact of ISSPs in greater depth including, importantly, from the perspective of state schools. We also recommend further work aimed at sharpening understanding of how outcomes are achieved and how schools can manage, plan and evaluate any partnership work they undertake.

In section 2 we review the evidence base and draw together some learning about school partnerships that we believe to be relevant to ISSPs. We offer the headlines of a taxonomy for describing different kinds of ISSPs. In section 3 we describe current ISSP practices based on a survey of independent schools and make some observations about these. In section 4 we bring together the findings of this short study making suggestions for the next stage of the research.


In this section, we explore the current state of our understanding about school partnerships. We begin by outlining a continuum of possible school partnerships. Next we consider the existing evidence base on partnerships between independent and state schools (ISSPs). We explore questions about the purposes of different ISSPs, the kinds of ISSP and how they are structured, the nature of shared ISSP activity, and what we can say about the barriers and enablers to ISSPs.

A summary follows of what we understand more generally about effective partnerships from recent national and international literature reviews and wider evidence on school partnerships. We then look at the evidence from both ISSPs and wider school partnerships of impact on students, staff, leadership, school improvement, and networks.

Distinctive differences between the independent and state school sectors have also led us to extend our search to look at partnership arrangements between organisations with different cultures, accountabilities and histories. The review concludes by considering what can be gleaned from successful partnerships that bridge cultural divides. The section draws on a rapid review of literature, more details of which can be found in Appendix 1.

2.1 A range of school partnerships

In education, the term ‘partnerships’ covers a wide range of collaborative arrangements between schools as well as with external partners, such as community organisations, universities, and businesses. Terms such as ‘partnership’, ‘network’, ‘cluster’, ‘family’, ‘federation’, ‘engagement’, ‘co-operation’ and ‘collaboration’ are frequently used interchangeably to describe different ways of schools working with one another (Armstrong, 2015). Building on work by Hill and colleagues (2012) and adapting this for the ISSP context we articulate a continuum of partnership activity in Figure 1.

The boxes above the arrow describe common structural features of partnerships, from loose and informal on the left to formalised on the right. The boxes below the line reflect the level and depth of shared activity enabled through the partnership, ranging from individual projects on the left to widespread engagement and impact based on shared aims on the right.

At the right-hand side a partnership can involve shared governance, for example through sponsorship in a Multi-Academy Trust (MAT). This model might involve shared leadership roles and accountability structures and even a common pedagogical approach and culture across schools.

2. What does the evidence tell us about school partnerships?

Figure 1 – The school partnership continuum

Partnership projects Shared aims & approachEngagement & impact

across all schools

Informal linksFormal links & agreement

Dedicated staffing Shared governance

‘In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to

collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed.’

Charles Darwin


Around the middle of the spectrum sit partnership arrangements in which the schools remain separate, but agree shared aims and a regular programme of projects and initiatives that enrich the quality of staff and/or student learning or that share resources to the benefit of all partners. Over time these partnerships will engage many staff and impact on the day-to-day culture of the participating schools. These partnerships are likely to reflect a formal agreement or Memorandum of Understanding, and to have some level of dedicated staffing to co-ordinate the joint work.

To the left of the continuum sit a range of informal partnerships. These might reflect informal and ad-hoc relationships between schools or more significant links that are reliant on individual relationships, for example where a member of staff sits on the governing body of another school.

2.2 Independent-State School Partnerships – purposes, types and nature of activity

The term Independent-State School Partnership (ISSP) is currently used to refer to arrangements between two or more schools which include at least one independent and one state school. As our definition on page 4 makes clear we are including any deliberate collaboration or association whether formal or informal, short or long-term, wide-ranging or focused. ISSP arrangements occur across the continuum of activity described in 2.1.

We found very little research on ISSPs and what we did find was largely based on evidence from partnerships funded through the Independent-State School Partnerships programme, which ran from 1998-2011. The overarching aim of that programme was to raise standards in education through collaborative working (Sharp et al., 2002). Project-specific aims included breaking down barriers between sectors, sharing expertise and furthering professional development. Government funding was also provided in 2014 for 18 new or existing ISSP partnerships to strengthen teaching of subjects in key stages 1 and 2 (DfE, 2014).

Our review of current ISSP activity indicated that the aims and focus of partnerships are varied, although some are not publicly specified. Some examples from the Schools Together website are overarching and appear to encompass many types of activity, while others are more specific, identifying a focus for activity and sometimes the specific schools involved (see Box 1).

ISSPs vary in size, but commonly involve two schools. Several examples exist of an independent school with ISSPs with different state schools, each with individually-planned aims and activities. A small number of independent schools act as the sole or co-sponsor of a state academy or free school and a small number are involved in MATs (Hill, 2016). As such, they have shared governance and accountability. Independent school headteachers are encouraged to apply to become National Leaders of Education (NLEs) and independent schools are eligible to become Teaching Schools.

Research investigating the interpretation of public benefit conferred to independent schools as a condition of charitable status (Wilde et al., 2016) identifies the sharing of resources, activities and expertise including through partnerships as one means of providing such benefit. Combining Wilde et al.’s assessment with evidence from case studies (Smithers and Robinson, 2008, HMC website) and the Schools Together website, we can identify broad activity areas (see Box 2).

Box 1: ISSP aims – some examples

‘To deliver enrichment activities to talented pupils in Science, Mathematics and Modern Foreign Languages’ Wellington Partnership

‘Collaboration between Birkdale School and Sheffield Music Academy enables Sheffield students (8-18 years) to develop their musical talents’ Birkdale and Sheffield Music Academy Partnership

‘To raise pupil achievement; improve pupil self-esteem; raise pupil aspirations; and, improve professional practice across the schools’Eton, Slough, Windsor and Heston Partnership

‘To introduce children from [named] Primary School to our Forest School’ or ‘To introduce primary age pupils to secondary level science through fun experiments and interactive lectures’Rendcomb College

‘Provides up to fifty Year 5 pupils from thirteen different primary schools in Bolton with the chance to come into the Boys’ and Girls’ Senior schools on Saturdays and receive lessons from specialist senior staff’Bolton School


2.3 Independent-State School Partnerships – enablers and barriers

Some independent-state school partnerships are initiated by schools themselves, through existing networks or by reaching out to neighbouring schools (Turner, 2004). Others were initially promoted externally. An Independent-State Schools Partnership Forum, with representatives from both sectors, meets termly at the DfE with the Secretary of State for Schools and organises conferences and other networking opportunities. Although the evidence base is still limited, emerging factors for developing successful ISSPs can be identified (see Box 3).

While all partners can see benefits, the key barrier to the development of successful ISSP partnerships is, in one shape or form, negative pre-conceptions about the other

sector that needed working through in the early stages (Sharp et al., 1999; Turner, 2004).

State schools express concerns about independent sector staff’s limited expertise in teaching students in mixed-ability schools, and feelings of being patronised (Wilde et al, 2016). From their perspective, those in independent schools believe that partnership work must be easily manageable alongside their own school’s priorities.

2.4 Other school-to-school partnerships – successes and challenges

The wider landscape of partnership arrangements is rapidly evolving and complex. Our review draws on findings from a DfE-commissioned review of literature (Armstrong, 2015) identifying ‘characteristics of effective inter-school collaboration and other forms of school-to-school partnership in the English school system‘ (p7), evaluations of Teaching Schools in the context of a wider international literature review (Gu et al., 2015), the national Networked Learning Communities programme (Earl and Katz, 2006), recent early evaluations of MATs (Hill et al., 2012; Hutchings et al., 2016), an evaluation of a voluntary partnership’s peer review programme (Headon and Matthews, 2015), and a recent analysis of international research and case studies on effective networks in education (Rincón-Gallardo and Fullan, 2016).

Notably, Armstrong points to the lack of extensive academic research on school partnerships in England, and his review mainly focuses on commissioned reports and evaluations of several national initiatives.

The initial phase of partnerships is important. Teaching Schools with established relationships and experience of working with other schools find the initial stages of forming a successful partnership easier (Gu et al., 2015). Hill (2016) suggests that the most successful MATs are geographically focused, with participating schools close to each other. An external broker, often a local authority, can be helpful in initiating successful partnerships (Gu et al., 2015; House of Commons Education Committee, 2015). A phased approach to change is then valuable (Chapman and Muijs, 2014; NfER, 2016; Muijs, 2015).

Centrally-imposed initiatives may prove a barrier to sustainable partnership, as in the 14-19 partnerships discussed by Haynes and Lynch (2013), although opportunities to submit a bid for partnership funding may prove an incentive to collaborate which is sustained when

Box 3: Emerging factors contributing to successful ISSPs

• Commitment and direction from headteachers and senior leaders (Turner, 2004; Postle, 2003)

• Consensus around common aims and objectives (Turner, 2004; Postle, 2005)

• Support for the project secured from all staff (Turner, 2004; Postle, 2005)

• Benefit for all schools involved, in an equal relationship (Turner, 2004; Wilde et al., 2016)

• External support, e.g. from a local authority (Ofsted, 2005)

• Funding to initiate new partnerships, or in some cases to enhance the work of existing partnerships (Sharp et al., 2002; Turner, 2004)

Box 2: ISSP activities

• Joint activities for students e.g. masterclasses, summer or Saturday schools, lectures, debating, arts or sports events

• Sharing facilities e.g. swimming pools, playing fields, music facilities and science laboratories

• Sharing expertise e.g. specialist advanced teaching for able pupils or university application preparation guidance

• Shared professional learning, including joint teacher training, collaborative professional development, mentoring, collaborative curriculum and resource development for co-curricular experiences, teaching in each other’s schools, digital networking

• School improvement, including sponsorship of an academy or free school, shared governance


funding ceases (Duffy and Gallagher, 2014). Other common challenges faced in school partnerships include:

• perceived power imbalances between schools, including agreements to ‘receive’ advice, and monitoring and evaluation

• overcoming misconceptions about cultural differences• additional workload and costs of collaborative activity.

2.5 Impact of partnerships

Partnerships need to make a difference, otherwise there is little point or incentive for the effort and energy expended. This section summarises findings from both ISSPs and the wider evidence on school-to-school partnerships.

Research on ISSPs is consistent in suggesting that the partnerships are, in most cases, successful in meeting their aims, but that it is both problematic and too early to identify readily measurable impacts on educational standards (Sharp et al., 1999; Sharp et al., 2002; Turner, 2004; Smith, Kerr and Harris, 2003; Ofsted, 2005). In more recent research, a small sample of headteachers, from both independent and state sectors, were positive about the impact on their own schools (Wilde et al., 2016) and a few recent ISSP projects have been formally evaluated (McCarthy Somerville and Gill, 2016).

Further evidence comes from two projects funded by the London Schools’ Excellence Fund (SQW, 2016a, b) between 2013-2016 (Christ the King Sixth Form College project with four independent schools and seven state schools and colleges, and City of London Boys’ School with Stepney Green Sixth Form College).

Existing evidence, although limited thus far, indicates impact at several levels (see Table 1 below).

Table 1 highlights that the evidence on wider, non-ISSP, school to school partnerships is still growing, but does include a small number of evaluations using robust quasi-experimental designs to assess impact, as well as some large-scale evaluations across different types of partnership. This evidence is strongest in highlighting the impact of partnerships that have a tight focus on school improvement, for example between a high- and a low-performing school. Wider partnerships that seek to enrich the learning experience and curriculum are harder to evaluate in terms of impact. At this stage, the evidence of impact from ISSPs is based on a relatively small number of studies that generally rely on participant reports and case studies. That said it is possible to hypothesise that some of the benefits found in other school partnerships might be relevant to ISSPs.

Impact of ISSPs, largely based on small-scale studiesExamples of impact of other school-to-school partnerships

On pupils Developing confidence and communication skills of pupils (Smith, Kerr and Harris, 2003). Direct pupil benefit from access to high-quality input by subject experts (Ofsted, 2005). Greater self-knowledge and understanding of other social and cultural backgrounds (McCarthy Sommerville and Gill, 2016; Turner, 2004). Progress in STEM and history (SQW, 2016b).

Most success where weaker school partnered with stronger school, (Chapman and Muijs, 2014; NfER, 2016; Muijs, 2015). Some increases in pupil attainment levels and in schools’ value-added performance at key stage 2, 3 and 4 in Networked Learning Communities schools (Earl and Katz, 2006). Mixed evidence on impact of established MATs on pupil performance in their academies (House of Commons Education Committee, 2017).

On staff Professional learning of teachers about different types of pedagogy, including effective teaching of highly able pupils, built on trusting, open, reciprocal relationships and encouraging deep reflection on potentially sensitive issues (McCarthy Sommerville and Gill, 2016; Ofsted, 2005; Turner, 2004). Ongoing appetite for networking (SQW, 2016b).

Greater consensus, with ‘opportunities for deeper and more sustained professional learning between practitioners than might be achieved through more traditional forms of CPD alone’ (Gu et al., 2015, p27). Some changes in thinking and practice.

On schools Curriculum development and enrichment (Turner, 2004; Ofsted, 2005). Independent schools publicising their work within the community (Wilde et al., 2016).

On school development, curriculum development and leadership development, especially where activities included high quality PD (Gu et al., 2015), collective responsibility for peer evaluation and follow up support (Matthews and Headon, 2016).

On partnerships, relationships and sustainability

Change in initial pre-conceptions (Ofsted, 2005). Stimulus and motivation of working as part of a collaborative partnership (Turner, 2004). Continuing networks in some areas, despite the lack of regular funding (House of Commons Education Committee, 2013).

Development of mutually beneficial relationships between the schools (Chapman and Muijs, 2014; NfER, 2016; Muijs, 2015) was a feature of most successful partnership pairings.

Table 1 – Impact of school to school partnerships


2.6 Partnerships bridging cultural divides

Independent and state schools are very different. Their distinctive cultural and historical features add a further dimension which may be unaccounted for in reviews of state school partnerships. In this section, therefore, we widen our review to consider what might be learned from international research from the perspective of partnerships between organisations with different cultures and ways of working, drawing on five selected exemplars, briefly described below.

Schools and external partners – The OECD’s Innovative Learning Environments initiative emphasises the importance of learning institutions reaching out to external partners (OECD, 2015). Through the knowledge sharing, innovation and synergy of collaborative partnership work, in both formal and informal networks, organisational and system learning and improvement was secured. Across diverse cultures and systems, the OECD’s conclusions on partnership working between schools, community groups, parents and other educational, voluntary and business partners confirm what has been found in English research on partnership formation. Brokers may help to bring together suitable partners but it takes time to build relationships of trust that enable effective knowledge sharing and innovation. Digital networking is increasingly essential in sustaining communication and collaboration across barriers of time and geographical location and providing visibility for new partners to become involved.

Schools and arts partners – An Arts Council-funded partnership initiative, Creative Partnerships, aimed to provide schools with opportunities to work in partnerships with creative practitioners and groups. Creative learning experiences were geared towards improving students’ engagement with education and cross-curriculum impact. Teachers would develop creative teaching skills with a transformative effect across the school. Successive evaluation studies identified positive impacts on students, teachers and on the school (Cooper et al., 2011; Lamont et al., 2010; Mackey and Ullman, 2006; Ofsted, 2006). Successful partnerships were led by enthusiastic co-ordinators with excellent organisation and communication skills, supported and encouraged by the headteacher and other senior leaders. Time was spent up front negotiating projects that would meet agreed goals and match schools’ needs and skills (Sharp et al., 2006). Leadership was critical in extending impact, by approaching and engaging new partners (Centrifuge Consulting, 2012).

Inter-organisational networks – The delivery of Every Child Matters (DfES, 2003), in which universal, targeted and optional services were tasked with working together to improve outcomes for children in England, highlights the critical role of leadership in effective inter-organisational networks. Leadership of local authority Directors of Children’s Services was essential to engage senior leaders in establishing consensus about priority goals and in formulating and implementing strategy (National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services, 2011). Effective Directors understood their context and needs, using relationship skills to build an effective partnership team, with loyalty, trust and commitment to developing distributed leadership for change throughout the system. Research concludes that to achieve the potential of multi-agency working, leaders in the local authority, schools and partner organisations needed to be creative, flexible, open to challenge, willing to take risks and able to provide moral leadership and negotiate difficult areas, including those of local and system politics (Coleman, 2006). An international research review (Popp et al., 2014) reinforces benefits for all partners of working in this way, through increased opportunities for positive change through innovation, knowledge sharing and collaborative learning. It emphasises the importance of commitment and trust building over time to long-term effectiveness, and a shared moral purpose for a successful partnership. Commitment is required to agree on the purpose of the network and its goals, to sustain the effort needed for coordination and to overcome the barriers of cultural differences or perceived power imbalances.

Partnership working between schools and universities – The challenges of bridging cultural differences are probed by Greany and colleagues (2014). They describe deep cultural differences between the sectors: ‘enshrined in different accountability structures, operating models and languages, which then drive individual and organisational behaviour. Other factors compound the challenge, not least the sheer logistical challenges’ (p 6). Their report reinforces ‘essentials’ for effective partnerships of: highly-skilled leadership; shared goals; relationships built on trust, equality and shared accountability; resources; the improvement of practice through collaborative inquiry; and reaching out to form new partnerships as well as learning from within. It also identifies the role of a ‘third space’ – distinct from the culture of each individual partner organisation – in allowing for greater creativity and the importance of ‘blended professionals’ (p6) with experience of working across institutional boundaries.


Partnerships bridging religious differences – An example of Protestant and Catholic schools in Northern Ireland demonstrates how shared activities and school visits led to improved confidence and developing friendships among pupils (Duffy and Gallagher, 2014). The researchers point to the importance of a shared aim, a relationship of equality and excellent ongoing communication. A cultural shift towards collaboration rather than competition was encouraged by partnership working, with an appetite for future collaboration despite lack of ongoing funding. Factors which made continuing collaboration differ among the partnerships studied included: the amount of time over which schools had experienced partnership working; the quality of relationships, particularly between school leaders and governors; and physical proximity of involved schools.

2.7 Towards a framework for understanding Independent-State School Partnerships

We conclude this brief review of the literature by drawing together work on the features of effective partnerships in the UK and internationally, and by combining evidence on effective school partnerships with the learning about partnerships that bridge cultural divides. We set this out in a tentative framework that could provide a basis for further research into ISSPs.

In developing this framework, we draw particularly on international research that often takes a more holistic view of school partnerships, for example from the OECD’s Innovative Learning Environments initiative (OECD, 2013; 2015) and from Rincón-Gallardo and Fullan’s (2016) analysis of research and case studies on effective educational networks. The OECD research establishes the centrality of learning as the focus for all actors involved in education and the need for ‘learning leadership’ (Istance and Stoll, in OECD, 2013, p 20), to set direction for learning within and across increasingly complex organisations, seeing that through into design and strategy. Learning leadership is needed to achieve coherence and synergy at all levels of a system including learning networks.

Rincón-Gallardo and Fullan, similarly, discuss the potential of partnership working in terms of the learning of students, teachers, leaders and the system as a whole. They define an effective educational network as collaboration that:

• deepens the learning and engagement of students• enhances the professional capital (see, also, Hargreaves

and Fullan, 2012) of teachers and leaders continuously to improve pedagogy and student engagement

(see, also, Lucas et al., 2013)• becomes a force of improvement in the whole system (p6).

Based on this work, we set out the framework in Box 4 as the beginnings of a way to understand the features of effective ISSPs.

2.8 Conclusions

Overall, our review found little high-quality literature about the processes by which ISSPs are created and managed and virtually no comprehensive studies of their impact. At the same time, existing research suggests that it is possible to achieve impact at a number of levels when engaging in school-to-school partnerships.

Our review nevertheless provides food for thought in considering how to develop ISSPs to ensure that they are likely to make a difference. The limited nature of the evidence on which we have drawn, however, means that the findings are offered with a caveat that further research is needed to explore ISSPs more fully.

We now offer a snap-shot of ISSP activities currently underway which can be read in the light of the comments in this section.

Box 4: Emerging features of effective ISSPs

• A mutually agreed and shared focus on ambitious student learning outcomes linked to effective pedagogy and an enriched curriculum and bringing benefits to all partners

• Consensus on long- and short-term purposes, goals and approaches with clear governance and accountability

• Skilled facilitation which is sensitive to context and that can build commitment and trust between all parties

• Learning leadership that is committed to bridging cultural differences and building mutually respectful relationships

• A commitment to participation and continuous learning by all staff

• Engagement of students, families and communities

• A focus on evaluation and impact

• Adequate resources to sustain the work, with dedicated staffing, time, clear processes and good communication


Our study included a rapid online survey of a sample of independent schools, aimed at providing a base-line picture of the ISSP activity they are engaged in. We are well aware of the limitations of only approaching one side of the partnership. The decision to use this method was a pragmatic one given the tight timescale and resources available for this project.

3.1 About the independent sector and this survey

The Independent-State School Partnerships Survey we conducted consisted of twenty questions seeking to explore participants’ views on the partnerships between independent and state schools. Questions asked about the types of partner schools (independent and state sector); their partnership activities; the organisation of partnership work; the areas of focus; any benefits of or challenges to partnerships for students, teachers, schools and relationships between them. A combination of closed and open-ended questions was used to serve the purposes of this project. See Appendix 1 for a more detailed description of the methodology and Appendix 2 for a complete list of the survey questions.

Participants were recruited via the Independent School Council’s mailing list and were invited to complete the survey online. Schools had just two weeks at the end of March 2017 to complete the survey. Their responses have been anonymized and evaluated using both quantitative and qualitative methods.

3.2 About the respondents

There are 1,320 schools on the ISC mailing list from which 132 responded, a 10% response rate. The sample consisted of 78 Headteachers, 14 Deputy or Assistant Heads, 13 Heads of Partnerships or Outreach, 9 Directors of a subject relevant to the focus of the partnership work of the school (for example, Director of External Relations), and 18 participants in other positions. Responses were received

from schools of all sizes with about three fifths coming from schools with more than 400 pupils. Percentages of participants’ responses are shown in Table 2. See Appendix 3 for more details about respondents.

3.3 Types of partnership and how they are organised

We asked participants to indicate whether they were Nursery, Pre-prep, Prep, Senior, and Sixth Form College, with many selecting combinations of these options. Out of 132 participants, 98 also gave us information on the number and type of state schools with which they were in partnership at the time of the study.

More than half who gave us this additional information (53 out of 98) said that they were working with more than five state schools. Another 33 schools were working with between one and five state schools. As for the school-types, overall, there were 180 partnerships with one or more of the following: Primary, Middle School, Secondary and Sixth Form. Out of the 180 state partners, 86 were Primary schools and 69 were Secondary schools.

From these data it would appear that most collaborations take place between schools of comparable phases of education across the two sectors (for example Pre-prep and Prep schools with Primary schools). A more detailed analysis of the number of schools per type and counts of indicated partnerships between independent and state schools per

3. What is the current scope of Independent-State School Partnerships?

Answer OptionsResponse

CountResponse Percent

0-200 28 22%

201-400 23 17%

401-600 26 19%

601-800 18 14%

More than 800 37 28%

Total number answering question 132 100%

Table 2 – Number of pupils on roll in your school

‘The most effective and successful engagement develops between Heads or

teachers really wanting to work together out of genuine local relationships, need

and enthusiasms.’

Celebrating Partnerships, Independent Schools Council


type can be found on The Tony Little Centre for Innovation and Research in Learning website (http://www.etoncollege.com/CIRL.aspx).

We also asked participants to indicate the number of projects on which they were working at the time of the survey. Most responding independent schools appear to work on multiple partnership projects. Out of 96 responses to this question, 41 were working on between 1 and 5 projects, 35 on more than 5 projects and the remaining 20 on only one project.

As for the duration of their partnerships, 84 out of 101 participants said that they have been collaborating with the state sector for more than two years, with 10 schools in partnership for one-two years and 7 schools for less than a year. In short, partnership working does not appear to be a recent phenomenon for this sample.

A total number of 100 participants gave us information on the organisation of their school’s partnership work. For the majority of 61 participants (61 out of 100), there was an identified individual leading partnership work, while there was no identified individual for the remaining respondents. 64 respondents provided the title of this individual in their school. In 12 schools a Headmaster/Headmistress was leading partnership work, in 13 schools an Assistant or Deputy Head worked alone or in collaboration with the Headmaster in leading partnership work, in 6 schools there was a Head of Partnerships leading the work and in five schools there was a Head of Outreach in that role. Other titles mentioned reflect the specific area of focus of the partnership: Head of Physical Education, Head of Table Tennis Development Centre and the Director of Marketing and Communications, Head of External Relations, Community Cohesion Co-ordinator, Development and Outreach Coordinator, Director of Social Responsibility, Head of Academic Extension, Director of Community Links, Director of Studies and Teacher in charge of Outreach. For half of these respondents (48 out of 93) these were formal leadership roles.

A cross-tabulation analysis between the size of the school and the leadership type showed that in larger schools (more than 800 pupils) it was likely that the individual leading the partnership work would hold a formal leadership role, while there was no statistically significant relationship between size of school and formal/informal leader in middle-sized and small schools. In 93 out of 98 schools other members of staff were also involved in partnership work. In more than half of the cases (51 out of 93) these included 2-5 members

of staff, while in 28 schools more than 10 members of staff were also involved.

3.4 Focus of partnership activity

Participants were asked to indicate the areas of focus of their partnership work. They were given the option of selecting multiple responses. A total number of 98 participants responded to the question. Their 898 choices were analysed and response counts and percentages per area of focus are shown in Table 3. The choice of category headings used in the survey was based on those used on the Schools Together website and from a preliminary analysis of the literature.

Percentages in Table 3 show the proportion of partnerships in each area of focus calculated out of the total number of 898 responses collected. From Table 3 academic enrichment in its broadest sense is clearly the most significant category, both by dint of its individual mentions and because many of the specific topics are, either through the classroom, through co-curricular work or through extra-curricular activity, part of the broader concept of academic enrichment.

Table 4 shows the same activities according to their reported frequency, rounded to the nearest whole number. Percentages are calculated based on the total number of respondents (98) to show the proportion of schools that were working on each area of focus at the time of the study.

Even with this re-ordering it is difficult to disaggregate broader categories from these 30 items. While some elements are discrete and clear – initial teacher training or sponsorship of a Free School or an Academy – others are less so. So, for example, sharing practice or leadership development could cover a multitude of activities.

To understand these data at a higher level we have recombined them to show some potential relationships. We have selected five main categories, two of which (academic enrichment and parents) appeared on the earlier list while the remaining three are new. All could play a potential role in improving outcomes for pupils at both state and independent schools:

1. Academic and social enrichment2. Governance and resources3. Professional learning4. Parents5. Student well-being.


Using these categories the strong focus on the broad idea of academic and social enrichment of pupils becomes even clearer (see Table 5). Percentages are calculated based on total number of responses (898) and rounded to the nearest whole number. Academic and social enrichment combines all relevant areas of focus, while our original academic enrichment option appears as a sub-category of the main academic and social enrichment category.

We are aware that many of these sub-elements could legitimately appear under different headings. So, for example, leadership development could be part of the provision of opportunities for professional learning or, as we have located it, part of a wider interest in improving governance. In the next stage of any exploration of ISSPs it will be helpful to test out these categories.

Thus far we have looked at activity levels. We now turn to perceptions of benefit.

Table 4 – Main types of ISSP activity

%* Type

80 Academic enrichment

58 Sport

55 Sharing practice

52 Shared physical resources

49 Co-curriculum

48 Music

45 School to school support

44 Professional learning/development for staff

40 Bursaries and scholarships

STEM

37 Volunteering

35 Governance and governors

Initial teacher training

31 Drama

29 Shared human resources

Student socialisation

27 Debating

21 Leadership development

Mentoring

18 Sponsorship for e.g. of a Free School or Academy

Summer Schools

International

16 CCF

15 Mental health/well-being of pupils

13 Action research/professional enquiry

12 Festivals

Research projects

10 Faith-based

4 Pupil voice

Parent

*Percentages calculated out of total number of respondents = 98

*Participants could select multiple options. Percentages calculated out of total number of individual choices = 898.

Table 3 – Focus of partnership activities

ActivitiesResponse

CountResponse Percent*

Academic enrichment 78 8.7%

Action research/Professional enquiry 13 1.4%

Bursaries and scholarships 39 4.3%

CCF 16 1.8%

Co-curriculum 48 5.3%

Debating 26 2.9%

Drama 30 3.3%

Faith-based 10 1.1%

Festivals 12 1.3%

Governance and governors 34 3.8%

Initial teacher training 34 3.8%

International 18 2.0%

Leadership development 21 2.3%

Mental health/well-being of pupils 15 1.7%

Mentoring 21 2.3%

Music 47 5.2%

Parents 4 0.4%

Professional learning/ Professional development for staff

43 4.8%

Pupil voice 4 0.4%

Research projects 12 1.3%

School to school support 44 4.9%

Shared human resources 28 3.1%

Shared physical resources 51 5.7%

Sharing practice 54 6.0%

Sponsorship, for example of an Academy or Free School

18 2.0%

Sport 57 6.3%

STEM 39 4.3%

Student socialization 28 3.1%

Summer schools 18 2.0%

Volunteering 36 4.0%

Total number of responses 898 100%


3.5 Perceived impact of partnership activity

Participants were also asked to rank the wider list of activities we have been exploring on pages 12-13 in order of importance. A total number of 91 respondents answered this question noting their 1st, 2nd and 3rd most beneficial area of focus. For ease of interpretation, response counts and percentages were calculated for each area of focus and for the five overarching types of activities based on the total number of responses per option (1st = 81, 2nd = 88 and 3rd = 86). Frequencies in main types are presented in Table 6.

Overall independent schools respondents perceived a range of benefits from ISSPs – for everyone involved as well as for their relationships with other people and their staff. When comparing the main types of activities that schools were working in as presented in Table 5 and the areas that they indicated as most beneficial in Table 6, it is interesting to find that the most popular types of activities were also ranked to be most beneficial for participating schools. Academic and social enrichment was the most popular area of focus for partnership work (45%) and was constantly ranked as beneficial by half of the participants (between 44% and 57% in the three options).

More than a quarter of the respondents indicated governance and resources as an area of focus for their partnership work (28%) and ranked it as the most beneficial type of activities (23%-26%). Not surprisingly and reassuringly it seems that schools choose to work on areas that they value as being beneficial for the school and everyone involved.

From the free text answers in the survey it is possible for us to understand these views in greater detail. Figure 2 graphically combines the qualitative answers on benefit quantitatively (size of image indicating number of mentions) while at the same time suggesting potential connections or linkages.

Each ‘word region’ represents a popular topic as emerged from participants’ open responses. Larger words and larger circles in each topic represent the most used terms and smaller words are key concepts frequently associated with the dominating terms of the topic. Different topics are interlinked with straight lines forming a network of central and peripheral concepts that underlie the main perceived benefits of partnership activity.

The most numerous terms used were ‘local/community’ (121 mentions), ‘school’ (89), ‘opportunities’ (63), ‘pupils’ (62) and ‘sharing’ (56). An analysis such as this shows that participants strongly associate partnerships with educational benefits for their students. Underlying these key words are terms like ‘educational’ (17), which lie between ‘opportunities’ and ‘pupils’. On the other side of the branch, ‘opportunities’ are connected with words like ‘widening’, ‘experience’ (26). Working with peers from ‘different backgrounds’ (23’) is seen as beneficial. Other concepts related to ‘opportunities’ are wider social interaction and involvement as well as ‘better understanding’ (58) and ‘improved skills’ (28), also linked with ‘knowledge’ (12) and ‘leadership’ (8). The last branch highlights the importance

*Participants could select multiple options. Percentages calculated out of Total number of individual choices = 898.

Table 5 – Main types of ISSP activity

PopularityResponse Percent*

Type

1 45% Academic and social enrichmentAcademic enrichmentCo-curriculumCCFDebatingDramaFestivalsMusicSportSTEMSummer SchoolsVolunteering

2 28% Governance and resourcesBursaries and scholarshipsGovernance and governorsInternationalLeadership developmentSchool to school supportSponsorship for example of a Free School or AcademyShared physical resourcesShared human resources

3 20% Professional learningAction research/professional enquiryInitial teacher trainingMentoringProfessional learning/development for staffResearch projectsSharing practice

4 6% Student well-beingFaith-basedMental health/well-being of pupilsPupil voiceStudent socialisation

5 0% Parents


Table 6 – Perceived benefit of main types of ISSP activity

*Percentages calculated out of total number of answers per option

Which of these areas of focus do you find most beneficial?

Answer Options 1st Option 2nd Option 3rd Option

Response

CountResponse Percent*

Response Count

Response Percent*

Response Count

Response Percent*

Academic and social enrichment 46 57% 41 47% 38 44%

Governance and resources 21 26% 22 25% 20 23%

Professional learning 13 16% 20 22% 21 24%

Parents 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Student well-being 1 1% 5 6% 7 8%

Total number of answers 81 100% 88 100% 86 100%

Total number answering question 91

Figure 2 – Frequency of key words to describe ISSP benefits and potential connections


of ‘sharing’ of ‘expertise’ (72), ‘good practice’ (54) in ‘teaching’ (25), ‘ideas’ (41) and ‘access to facilities’ (45). Finally, the use of words such as ‘mutually’ (8), ‘common’ (6), ‘positive’ (21), ‘belonging’ (4), ‘integration’ (3) are revealing of the fact that partnerships are perceived to be bi-directional especially contributing to positioning independent schools at the centre of their local community.

Closer investigation of the responses showed that benefits for students included collaborating (appearing as ‘collaboration’ and ‘interaction’) with peers from other schools with different backgrounds, which can be ‘challenging and rewarding’, can ‘increase their confidence’ and may increase ‘interaction and social skills’. ‘Opportunities’ often appeared in conjunction with the word ‘learning’ or ‘academic learning’. Better ‘understanding’ (or ‘awareness’) was frequently mentioned in relation to the ‘world’ around the students or the ‘community’ as well as to their position in the world (‘their privilege’) resulting in empathy for less advantaged peers. For teachers, the benefit of ‘sharing’ related to resources, skills, expertise, best practice, ‘pedagogical ideas and innovations’, as well as trouble-shooting. Examples of professional learning, mutual support, networking, collaboration with colleagues and refreshing experience of teaching practice in very different environments were referred to as benefits. Open access to facilities for teaching, coaching and exams placement were also mentioned.

Participants also referred to ‘leadership opportunities for students’ and encouraging ‘engagement with national educational issues’ for teachers as a benefit for the independent sector. Benefits for state schools were particularly seen as offering ‘assistance to innovate and to intellectually stimulate students’, ‘access to huge experience’ (with university applications, for example) and to ‘extra-curricular activities’, facilities and classes in ‘more diverse subjects’.

Participants also identified ‘leadership opportunities for students’ and encouraging ‘engagement with national educational issues’ for teachers as a benefit for the independent sector. Benefits for state schools were particularly seen as offering ‘assistance to innovate and to intellectually stimulate students’, ‘access to huge experience’ (with university applications, for example) and to ‘extra-curricular activities’, facilities and classes in ‘more diverse subjects’.

Respondents most frequently referred to benefits related to parents appreciating the wider opportunities for learning, sharing of resources, socialising and participating in community life offered to their children. Other benefits included raising the ‘visibility’ or ‘profile’ of the school as well as understanding of the ‘school ethos of seeking to make a difference’. These responses taken together with some of the job titles mentioned on page 12 remind us that ISSPs are for many independent schools often associated with their marketing activities.

3.6 Perceived challenges to partnership activity

Respondents were also asked to discuss any challenges to partnership work. Figure 3 presents the most used words in a word cloud where frequency of occurrence is represented by the size of the word. 60 excerpts containing 418 terms were analysed. Five topics and 21 key terms emerged covering 73% of the total number of terms.

As the larger words in Figure 3 suggest, the main barrier to ISSPs is time, including related practical concerns. Perhaps unsurprisingly, time is mentioned in 31 of the 60 answers. Respondents said that partnership activities were often perceived as ‘extra demands’ for staff. For example, finding time for ‘investigating and developing links’, ‘organising a large scheme’ and ‘high quality events’ was viewed as challenging. Time constraints are also thought to hinder pupils’ engagement, as they are seen as being ‘too busy’. ‘Cost’ or ‘money’ and ‘resources’ were also key terms. Funding cuts and examination reforms experienced by state schools were referred to as resulting in difficulties in state schools’ participation despite their potential willingness. Other difficulties include making regular communication with state schools due to a lack of ‘a point of liaison’ or frequent changing of staff in charge.

Achieving consensus between many schools was mentioned as another challenge. In comments which pick up on our earlier observations on partnership as a means of bridging social divides (see pages 9 and 10), ‘prejudice or ignorance’ were cited as hindering partnership work in a number of individual responses, as were a lack of enthusiasm and ‘resistance to support’ on the part of some state schools.


3.7 Conclusions

There is a growing number of ISSPs, in part arising from a political focus on this issue over the past two decades, but also from a desire among some independent schools to strengthen relationships with their state school colleagues.

There are a myriad different approaches to the selection and leadership of ISSPs, from one-off events to lasting strategic relationships. The bulk of the collaborations focus directly or indirectly on the academic and social enrichment of pupils. Two other types are common – activities sharing financial or human resources and those focusing on professional learning.

The independent schools which responded to our survey appear enthusiastic and positive about the benefits of ISSPs. They are almost certainly a skewed sample of early adopters, but any emerging field needs to listen to and learn from these kinds of change agents.

In terms of the organisation of ISSPs, there is no agreement on what constitutes best practice and we found no ISSPs which are being or have been formally evaluated for their impact or cost/benefit.

Figure 3 – Perceived challenges to ISSPs


Given the current political interest in the relationship between independent and state schools it seems likely that ISSPs are set to continue to develop and grow.

From our brief review we suggest a need for:

• clarity about the extent and depth of engagement by both state and independent schools in ISSPs and the potential benefits to both

• better understanding of the different kinds of ISSPs and how these can best be created, shared, led and evaluated

• formal evaluation of the impact of ISSPs on state schools and independent schools and on their pupils, staff, parents and wider community

• greater understanding about the potential wider benefits to a society when state and independent schools collaborate effectively.

In terms of next steps we suggest three:

1. Conducting a comprehensive impact evaluation of ISSPs, including a survey of state schools as well as more detailed analysis of case studies.

2. Translating the information presented in sections 2 and 3 of this report into practical leadership tools and an evaluation framework which can then be piloted and developed with a sample of ISSPs.

3. Working with school leaders, teachers and membership bodies from both sectors to define with further clarity the processes which are central to successful ISSPs, specifically to explore the idea of shared spaces to bridge cultural divides.


4. Next steps for learning about Independent-State School Partnerships

‘Dialogue is a non-confrontational communication, where both partners are

willing to learn from the other and therefore leads much farther into finding new

grounds together.’Scilla Elworthy

Armstrong, P. (2015). Effective school partnerships and collaboration for school improvement: a review of the evidence: Research report. London, DfE.

Chapman, C. and Muijs, D. (2014) Does school-to-school collaboration promote school improvement? A study of the impact of school federations on student outcomes, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25:3, pp. 351-393.

Chen, Y.H., Lin, T.P. and Yen, D.C., 2014. How to facilitate inter-organizational knowledge sharing: The impact of trust. Information & Management, 51(5), pp. 568-578.

Christ the King Sixth Form College (2016) What makes the difference? How to support high-ability students to reach their A/A* potential. Available at: http://www.ctksfc.ac.uk/218/lsef-research-project.

Centrifuge Consulting (2012). Evaluation of the wider impacts of the Schools of Creativity Programme. Newcastle, Creativity, Culture and Education.

Coleman, A. (2006). Collaborative Leadership in Extended Schools. Nottingham, National College for School Leadership.

Cooper, L., Benton,T. and Sharp, C. (2011). The Impact of Creative Partnerships on Attainment and Attendance in 2008-9 and 2009-10. Slough: NfER.

Department for Education (2016) FOI response 2015 0054709 Available at: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/universities_involvement_as_lead

Department for Education (2014) ISSP Primary Curriculum Project. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/issp-primary-curriculum-project

Department for Education and Skills (2003). Every Child Matters. DfES, Norwich.

Duffy, G. and Gallagher, T. (2014). Sustaining school partnerships: the context of cross-sectoral collaboration between schools in a separate education system in Northern Ireland. Review of Education, 2:2, pp. 189-210.

Earl, L., and Katz, S. (2006). How networked learning communities work. Centre for Strategic Education, 2006.

Greany, T., Gu, Q., Handscomb, G., Varley, M., Manners, P. and Duncan, S. (2014). School-university partnerships: fulfilling the potential. Summary Report. Bristol, National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE).

Gu, Q., Rea, S., Smethem, L., Dunford, J., Varley, M. and Sammons, P. (2015). Teaching Schools Evaluation: Final Report. London, Department for Education.

Hargreaves, A. and Fullan, M. (2012) Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School. London: Routledge.

Haynes, G. and Lynch, S. (2013). Local partnerships: blowing in the wind of national policy changes. British Educational Research Journal, 39:3, pp. 425-446.

Headmasters’ and Headmistresses’ Conference (HMC) (n.d.) Partnerships. Available at: http://www.hmc.org.uk/about-hmc/partnerships/

Hill, R. (2016) The Growth of Multi-Academy Trusts: The implications and opportunities for the Independent education sector. Powerpoint presentation. Available at: http://www.mtmconsulting.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Robert-Hill-Multi-Academy-Trusts.pdf

Hill, R., Dunford, J., Parish, N., Sandals, L. (2012). The growth of academy chains: implications for leaders and leadership. Nottingham, National College for School Leadership.

House of Commons Education Committee (2017). Multi- academy trusts. London, The Stationery Office Ltd.

House of Commons Education Committee (2015). Academies and free schools. London, The Stationery Office Ltd.

House of Commons Education Committee (2013). School Partnerships and Cooperation. London, The Stationery Office Ltd.

Hutchings, M., Francis, B., Kirby, P. (2016). Chain effects 2016: The impact of academy chains on low- income students. London, The Sutton Trust.

Independent Schools Council (2017) Celebrating Partnerships: annual report of cross-sector partnership work between independent and state schools. London: Independent Schools Council.

Istance, D. and Stoll, L. (2013). ‘Learning leadership for innovative environments: the overview, in OECD (Ed.), Leadership for 21st Century Learning, Educational Research and Innovation, Paris, OECD Publishing.

References


Lamont, E., Jeffes, J. and Lord, P. (2010). Evaluation of the nature and impact of the Creative Partnerships programme on the teaching workforce. London, NfER.

Lucas, B., Claxton, C., and Spencer, E. (2013) Expansive Education: Teaching learners for the real world. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Mackey, T., Ullman, A. (2006). Creative Partnerships: Survey of headteachers. London: Arts Council England, Creative Partnerships.

McCarthy Sommerville, A. and Gill, S. (2016). Exploring the Pedagogies and Learning Opportunities of a co-curricular programme at Eton College as part of the Eton-Slough-Hounslow Independent & State School Partnership Scheme. Available at: http://etoncollege.com/userfiles/files/Saturday_Satya_report.pdf.

Muijs, D. (2015) Improving schools through collaboration: a mixed methods study of school-to-school partnerships in the primary sector. Oxford Review of Education, 41:5, 563-586.

National College for Leadership for Schools and Children’s Services (2011) Resourceful leadership: how directors of children’s services improve outcomes for children. Nottingham, National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services.

National Foundation for Educational Research (NfER) (2016). Evaluation of Tranche 2 of the Lead and Emerging Practitioner School Pathfinder Project. Cardiff: Welsh Government.

Office for Standards in Education (2006). Creative Partnerships: initiative and impact. London, Office for Standards in Education.

Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) (2005). Independent/state school partnerships. London: Office for Standards in Education.

OECD (2015) Schooling Redesigned: Towards Innovative Learning Systems, Educational Research and Innovation, Paris, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Oxfam (2007) Building Successful School Partnerships, Oxfam. Available at: http://www.centreforglobaleducation.org/documents/oxfam_gc_guide_building_successful_school_partnerships.pdf

Popp, J.K., Milward, H.B., MacKean, G., Casebeer, A. and Lindsrom, R. (2014) Inter-Organizational Networks. A Review of the Literature to Inform Practice. IBM Center for the Business of Government.

Postle, J. (2005) Developing Partnerships Between Independent And State Schools. Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Fellowship Report. Available at: http://www.wcmt.org.uk/sites/default/files/migrated-reports/42_1.pdf

Rincón-Gallardo, S. and Fullan, M. (2016) Essential features of effective networks in education. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 1: 1, pp. 5-22.

Schools Together http://www.schoolstogether.org

Sharp, C., Pye, D., Blackmore, J., Brown, E., Eames, A., Easton, C., Filmer-Sankey, C., Tabary, A., Whitby, K., Wilson, R., Benton, T. (2006). National Evaluation of Creative Partnerships. Final Report. London, NfER.

Sharp, P., Higham, J., Yeomans, D. and Daniel, D.M. (2002). Working together: the Independent-State School Partnerships Scheme. Leeds, Leeds University Education Department.

Sharp, P. R., Higham, J. J. S., Yeomans, D. J. and Daniel, D. M. (1999) Final Evaluation Report of the Independent State School Partnerships Scheme 1998-99. London: DFEE.

Smith, P., Kerr, K. and Harris, S. (2003) Collaboration between independent and local authority schools: LEA perspectives on partnership and community activities. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER).

Smithers, A. and Robinson, P., (2008) HMC Schools. A Quantitative Analysis. Buckingham. University of Buckingham.

SQW (2016a) Evaluation of the Mayor’s London Schools Excellence Fund. Final Report. Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/lsef_evaluation_report_final_1.pdf

SQW (2016b) Learning from the London Schools’ Excellence Fund. Thematic Report. Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/thematic_report_final.pdf

Turner, J., (2004). Building bridges: a study of independent-state school partnerships. Nottingham, National College of School Leadership.

Wilde, R.J., Green, F., Taylor- Gooby, P., Wiborg, S. (2016) Private Schools and the Provision of ‘Public Benefit’. Journal of Social Policy, 45:2,pp. 305–323.


This was a very rapid review of existing evidence and current practices into an area where very limited evidence of impact exists and where little is known about the mechanisms by which outcomes are achieved.

Literature review

An initial search was made for academic literature using search engines such as Google Scholar and the British Educational Index. In addition to searching databases on relevant key words and phrases (for example, independent- state school partnership, school partnership, school network, school cluster, school collaboration), searches were also undertaken on key initiatives that were known to include partnership working within particular policy contexts (for example, Networked Learning Communities, 14-19 Networks, Excellence in Cities).

The search was extended using bibliographies of a recent review of literature on school partnerships (Armstrong, 2015), general search engines and the websites of relevant organisations (for example, DfE, HMC, Independent School Council, Sutton Trust, National College for Teaching and Leadership, House of Commons Education Select Committee). More recent literature was prioritised on partnership arrangements which included some examples of involvement by independent schools. Recommendations of expert colleagues were used to further extend the search to partnership working among other organisations as well as schools.

The timescale for this review did not allow for a systematic search or full quality assessment of papers. Titles and abstracts of documents appearing in searches were scanned for relevance. It is likely that this may have resulted in the omission of some relevant documents. Items which were clearly opinion pieces or based only on anecdotal evidence, such as articles in the press, were not reviewed. Approximately 100 documents were read in full to inform this short review, from which representative pieces have been cited.

Survey of independent schools

The Independent-State School Partnerships Survey was conducted using the online platform Survey Monkey. A combination of closed and open-ended questions were included to enable us to quantify aspects of partnership work, as well as to investigate the views of schools about benefits and challenges in more depth. As appropriate, items were informed by the literature and wider evidence review. The sample size enabled us to explore the views of a wide range of independent schools about independent-state schools’ partnerships.

Data were initially exported in a spreadsheet for analysis. We used Excel and the Statistical Package for the Social Science for quantitative analysis of the responses to closed questions. Kapiche, an online analytical tool using Natural Language Processing, was used to guide qualitative analysis of open-ended question responses. Quantitative analysis included calculating frequencies for closed responses and exploring potential relationships between variables. We ran correlational analyses (cross-tabulations) between pairs of variables whose potential relationship were likely to be of interest, and might embellish findings from the literature review.

Answers to open-ended questions were uploaded on Kapiche, which calculated frequency of occurrence for each word in the text and illustrated links between frequently used words. Based on the storyboard and the word cloud produced by Kapiche, we performed a qualitative analysis of the responses to the open-ended questions.

Appendix 1 – Overview of study methods


The Independent-State School Partnerships Survey

About you and your school

1. Please enter information below: Name of school:

Full address of school: Name of Headteacher: Your name: Your position:

2. Number of pupils on roll in your school: 0-200 201-400 401-600 601-800 More than 800

3. Type of school: Nursery Pre-prep Prep Senior Sixth Form

About your partnership activities with state schools

Existing partnerships and purpose

4. Is your school working in partnership with one or more state schools? Please go to Question 20 if you are not currently working with any state schools. Yes No

5. Please tell us why you initially decided to get involved in a state school partnership.

Time and extent

6. How long have you been collaborating with the state sector? Less than a year Between 1 and 2 years More than 2 years

7. With how many state schools are you currently working in partnership? 1 1-5 More than 5

8. Are these partnerships with one or more of the following? Primaries Middle schools Secondaries Sixth form colleges

9. In how many independent-state school partnership projects are you involved? 1 1-5 More than 5

Leadership

10. Does an identified individual lead your partnership work? Yes No

11. If yes, what is his/her title (if they have one)?

12. Is it a formal leadership role? Yes No

13. Are other members of staff involved? Yes No

14. If yes, how many? 2-5 6-10 More than 10


Appendix 2 – Independent-State School Partnerships survey questions

Focus

15. Please indicate which of these words best describe the focus of the independent-state school partnerships you are currently in. There is no limit to the number of categories you can use. Academic enrichment Action research/Professional enquiry Bursaries and scholarships CCF Co-curriculum Debating Drama Faith-based Festivals Governance and governors Initial teacher training International Leadership development Mental health/well-being of pupils Mentoring Music Parents Professional learning/Professional development for staff Pupil voice Research projects School to school support Sharing practice Sponsorship, for example of an Academy or Free School Sport Shared physical resources Shared human resources STEM Student socialization Summer schools Volunteering

16. Which of these areas of focus do you find most beneficial? Please choose up to three from this list and rank in order of importance, where 1 is the most beneficial. 1 2 3

17. If the words in Question 15 do not describe your partnerships, please suggest some different key words that you find more helpful:

Benefits and challenges

18. Please describe any benefits you have noticed from your partnership work with state schools on the following aspects of school and community life: students teachers parents relationships between people and schools: other aspects of school and community life (please identify):

19. What challenges to partnership working have you noticed?

20. In a few sentences, what is your opinion of the benefits or otherwise of independent-state school partnerships for: independent schools state schools


Table 10 – Combinations of types in independent schools

Type of Independent School

Total Number of Schools per

Type

Number of Schools In

Partnership per Type

Nursery 0 0

Pre-prep 0 0

Prep 17 10

Senior 34 27

Sixth 2 1

Nursery/Pre-prep 1 0

Nursery/Pre-prep/Prep 18 11

Nursery/Pre-prep/Prep/Senior 6 5

Nursery/Pre-prep/Prep/Senior/Sixth 22 18

Nursery/Prep 1 1

Pre-prep/Prep 3 3

Pre-prep/Prep/Senior 4 4

Pre-prep/Prep/Senior/Sixth 10 8

Prep/Senior 3 2

Prep/Senior/Sixth Form 4 3

Senior/Sixth Form 7 7

Total number of answers 132 100

Table 9 – Combinations of types in partner state schools

Type of State School In PartnershipNumber of

Schools per Type

Primary 28

Middle School 0

Secondary 11

Sixth Form 0

Primary/Middle School 2

Primary/Middle School/Secondary 7

Primary/Middle School/Secondary/Sixth Form 3

Secondary/Sixth Form 1

Primary/Secondary 37

Primary/Secondary/Sixth Form 8

Primary/Sixth Form 1

Total number of answers 98

Table 7 – Position of respondents

Position in School Number per Position

Head/Principal/Headmaster/Headmistress 78

Deputy/Assistant Head 14

Head/Director of Partnerships/Outreach 13

Headmaster's PA 5

Head of Organisational Learning 1

Academic Principal 1

Director of External Relations 1

Director of External Affairs 1


Director of Social Responsibility 1

Director of Co-Curricular Activities 1


Director of Enterprise 1

Staff Tutor 1

Communications/Executive Officer 3

Director of Finance and Administration 2

Registrar 1

Operations Manager 1

Bursar 1

PA to the Bursar 1

External Relations Administrator 1

Executive Assistant 1

Not specified 1

Total number of respondents 132

Table 8 – Types of independent schools and state schools

Type of School

Total Number of Schools per

Type

Partnership per Type

Percentage of Schools In Partnership

per Type

Independent Nursery 48 35 72.9%

Independent Pre-prep 64 49 76.6%

Independent Prep 88 65 73.9%

Independent Senior 90 74 82.2%

Independent Sixth Form

45 37 82.2%

Total number of independent schools

335 260 77.6%

State Primary 86 86 100%

State Middle School 12 12 100%

State Secondary 69 69 100%

State Sixth Form 13 13 100%

Total number of state schools

180 180 100%

Total number answering questions

132

Appendix 3 – Selected survey results


Documents

Independent-State School Partnerships An initial review of ... · schools and wider partnerships. We also know something of the mechanisms by which such benefits are most likely to