School-to-School collaboration: a new model for school im-provement?of S2S Partnerships for Southampton City Council

Daniel Muijs

University of Southampton

Networking and collaboration

• Increasing interest from policymakers in education

• Limitations of top-down approaches• Limitations of single-school improvement• Large number of programmes in the UK recently• Networking has also gained popularity in the

private sector due to increased competition and need for innovation

Why network?

• Many glib statements, but…

Goals and activities

• Networking is not just about improving performance• Three main goals:

– School improvement – Broadening opportunities – Resource sharing

Goals and activities

• Activities can be aimed at– Short term– Medium term– Long term

Theories of networking

• Theoretical groundings for networking can be classified as:– Constructivist organisational theory– Social Capital theory– New Social Movements– Durkheimian network theory

Constructivist organisational theory

• Organisations are sense-making systems creating shared perceptions and interpretations of reality

• Create own reality, which risks becoming myopic• Need for collaboration, which is also hard

– Need sufficient cognitive distance– Need to be similar enough for dialogue– Co-operation lies at the heart of learning

Social capital

• Networking allows organisations to harness capital held by other actors

• Networking improves the flow of information in an organisation and plug structural holes

• Networks can influence their environment more• Is social capital an individual or collective good?

New social movements

• More fluid than traditional social movements• Complex, heterogeneous and transient• Build their own identity• Voluntaristic

Durkheimian network theory

• Anomie: – Alienation from prevailing values– Feeling of isolation and disconnect– Lack of ties

• Collaboration can help develop ties and reduce anomie

• Little strong causal evidence

• But: evidence of specific forms of collaboration having specific impacts

• Need for more quantitative studies

Can networking and collaboration raise attainment?

The impact of Federations

• National Pupil and School Datasets from 2001 onwards

• As no list exists, 50 LA’s contacted• 264 schools and 122 Federations were

identified • Matched sample drawn• Multilevel models

Do Federation schools outperform comparators?

Year

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

2004 cohort

        X   X  

2005 cohort

N       X X X X

2006 cohort

N N         X X

2007 cohort

N N N       X X

2008 cohort

N N N N       X

How much difference do they make?

Cohort/Year 2007 2008 2009 2010

2005 cohort 11.4 17.1 22.6 34.4

2006 cohort     26.4 29.5

2007 cohort     30.9 35.7

2008 cohort       27.5

What kind of collaboration?

• Performance Federations

• Academy Federations

S2S collaboration in primary sector

• Strong primary asked to collaborate closely with one or more struggling primaries

• Usually 6 months to 2 years

• 45 schools involved

16

Methods

• Mixed methods approach:

1. Quasi experimental quantitative study

2. Qualitative case studies

Impact on standards

• Quasi experimental study

• Matched sample

• Propensity score matching

– Prior attainment

– FSM

– Ethnicity

– SEN

– School type

Multilevel models – significant differences

  2010 2011 2012

English  X  X X

Maths   X X

Science     X

Multilevel models – effect sizes

  2010 2011 2012

English    11% 13%

Maths  16% 29% 33%

Science    19% 24%

Multilevel models

• Schools in the partnership significantly outperform matched schools not in collaborative partnerships

• Impact strongest in supported schools, but also ex-ists in supporting schools

• Not across the board, some examples of failure

214

What activities work?

• Leadership development

– Coaching and mentoring

– Restructuring leadership teams

• Developing teaching and learning

– Range of activities: AFL, coaching, observation, joint lesson planning

• Quick wins

– Preparing for inspection

What makes partnerships work?

• Clear focus on a limited number of goals ‘Otherwise there are too many mixed messages’ (Deputy Head, supporting school).

• A whole-school approach

• Openness from the supported school: ‘If the head is not totally open, then how can it work.’ (deputy head, supported school)

What makes partnerships work?

• Mutual benefits. ‘You can always learn something. No matter what kind of school it is, we can always learn something and always bring something back.’ (head, supporting school)

• Capacity in the supporting school. It’s also about knowing your own strengths and weaknesses, and what you can and cannot do. Also the strengths and weaknesses of your staff. You’ve got to know who can help who.’ (deputy head, supporting school).

What makes partnerships work?

• A phased approach

• Trust and personal relationships . ‘You don’t have to be best buddies, but you have to be on the same page’ (head, supporting school)

Conclusion

• Overall, these studies supports growing evidence in support of collaboration as a school improvement mechanism

• Supports constructivist and social learning theoret-ical perspectives

• Points to factors that need to be in place, however.

Conclusion• Is school-to-school collaboration a new model for

school improvement?

• Yes! But…

• No panacea!

• Conditions need to be in place

• One element of broader school improvement ‘landscape’

• Operating within a ‘coopetitive’ context

272