Abstract
This article emerges from work undertaken with leaders from a local authority who took part in a programme entitled ‘Advanced Leadership in Integrated Children’s Services Environment’ or ALICSE programme. The aim of this course was to engage leaders and managers in thinking differently about their roles and to consider how they could make changes to their leadership practices to cope with the fast pace of change now enforced on the educational landscape. Through co-construction of work-based knowledge and the application of integrated leadership theory with a local Higher Education Institution (HEI) during 2012, this research offers some insight into how a group of Local Authority (LA) teams have provided a de-centralised service for vulnerable families whilst maintaining and improving educational standards across the City’s primary schools. A range of leadership, improvement and process strategies are currently being piloted with inner city schools and presented in this paper as a series of vignettes which exemplify these strategies. By taking a more holistic, integrated approach to working with key personnel at both local authority and school level it has been possible to demonstrate a greater alignment between the different LA teams in respect of the support they are offering to the schools. These outcomes have arisen as a result of professional teams working on the development of a more autonomous approach to leadership based on a ‘can do’ attitude firmly embedded within a morally focused culture.
Introduction
Situated in the East Midlands, both the Quality, Standards and Performance team and the wider Children and Young People’s Services team are currently being re-structured to provide a focus on maintaining the quality of teaching and learning in the city’s primary schools. In comparison with contextually similar local authorities, this city’s primaries are ranked low for overall attainment. This gap is wider when measured against pupils eligible for free school meals and their peers in similar contexts at the end of each key stage. Working with primary head teachers, locality managers and learning directorates, the Quality, Standards and Performance team have identified some significant features cited as barriers to improvement in these under-performing schools.
The notion of school improvement and school effectiveness has now been with us for more than twenty years. While these large scale reforms have made significant in-roads into raising educational standards generally, there are still significant numbers of schools in many cities that are returning data to show that they are operating below the ‘floor standard’ and are therefore in urgent need of improvement. In 2011, this local authority had one of the highest percentages of primary schools below the national floor standard (60% of pupils attaining both English and Mathematics at L4+). The demographics of the city is also undergoing radical changes to its population; arrivals of East European and Traveller children present further challenges with regard to local authority support for schools. The government’s perspective (DfE 2011) would suggest a lack of confidence in the current model; a fall in the PISA ranking from the top 10 to the mid-point, loss of confidence in the examination standards and the curriculum, and a financial uneven playing field have been the ignition points that have prompted calls for changes to the system (OECD, 1997). Payne (2008: 4) recognises that some schools, despite repeated interventions, remain ‘pretty much the same kind of organisation they were at the beginning’. The change mantra that has pervaded education for many years has not always resulted in change for the better and may in itself not be the driver to push up standards. Problematising ‘change’ as a means of raising school performance helps to give focus to the type of change required and to the means of achieving it. Politically, the drivers for change may be within less palatable time-scales and are typically under-resourced (Harris, 2011). Rarely can schools make improvements without sustained support and the resources with which to do so. This research focuses on how a local authority adopted a different view of integrated working with their Quality, Standards and Performance team and primary school headteachers in order to respond to a dynamic and ever-changing environment whilst maintaining a focus on quality of teaching and learning.
School improvement
Central to raising performance in schools is evidence of good quality learning outcomes. Understanding how to become a better teacher and improving pedagogy are matters for teacher professionals in the classroom, and supporting teaching and learning is a matter for school leaders and external agencies who provide local leadership under a system improvement agenda. Schools under challenging circumstances often make structural changes that could be described as surface improvement but, by their very nature, improvements of this type are less durable over time. Murphy’s (2012) architecture of school improvement concludes that too much emphasis thus far has been placed on the content and materials needed to raise performance and too little on the framework or construction element of the process. For Murphy, ‘context always matters’ (p. 260), so by understanding the nature of the community, its schools and the nature of the improvements required, there will be a better chance of utilising dwindling resources and aligning improvements to the wider political agendas.
With the right support and investment in consummate professionals, integrating the construction with the content will be the key dynamic to raising standards. Since the Schools White Paper (2010) schools have been required to become autonomous organisations and the marketisation of support mechanisms on offer for schools has been subsequently widened. Local authorities are no longer required to set targets for how they will support school improvement but now offer it as a ‘traded service’ (DfE, p. 77).Their role has now moved into one of bridging and brokering school improvement intelligence between schools and a range of other services. The authority is required to foster a ‘culture of collaboration’, ‘a middle tier’ or a ‘mediating layer’ that supports schools as they strive to improve their outcomes. This change of focus requires a shift in leadership emphasis which is concentrated on building networks between schools, offering a form of moral leadership that equally supports and challenges schools to understand how they might undertake improvement strategies (ADCS, 2013).
For almost every case study of schools in decline that have subsequently undergone improvement there has been one central locus: the quality of the school leader (Day et al, 2000; Tranter, 2011) who has had the ability to build capacity and change structure. There is now a greater possibility that school autonomy may allow schools under challenging circumstances to work more collaboratively with a range of all support services in a much more effective, ‘joined-up’ way. What Harris (2011) refers to as a ‘network-based autonomy’ will also bring added responsibility to these teams, whether they are school or community-based. One of the most important aspects of this networking is that all leaders understand the concept of locality, devising local solutions by adopting, adapting and constructing their own locality. For this LA, the concept of locality is not only based on limitations of geography and the number of schools the LA serves, but also on how the re-organisation of the Children and Young People’s Services and intelligence sharing opportunities between them are best effected to deliver improved outcomes for the City’s schools. Central to this localised intelligence is the ability of the LA to provide moral leadership, to invest trust in others, and to work as leaders in the vein of distributed leadership (Harris, 2008), building links and investing in the importance of harmonious working relationships. This shift towards a culture of collaboration and the building models of leadership that have a focus on partnership working are urgently needed in order to support integrated working practices across diverse teams that supports effective means of providing a decentralised service for vulnerable families. The means that supporting this network-based approach is the challenge now facing this particular local authority as it continues to confront the challenges from its under-performing primary schools. By adopting a collaborative leadership stance, the LA will demonstrate their commitment to partnership working through, for example, evaluating the educational landscape, demonstrating clarity of vision and values, and mobilising staff and resources whilst sharing leadership strengths across the professional teams involved with school improvement agendas (McKimm and Held, 2009). Developing collaborative leadership became the focus of the locality-based task required of one of the ALICSE participants; essentially a placement activity to find out how integrated services and their leadership of these teams might work in practice.
The Research
The ALICSE programme provided participants with some basic research skills (how to conduct questionnaires, interviewing and so on). The programme developers took account of the professional experience of the participants who were well-placed to understand how small-scale research would operate in their own context. For this research, the documentation arising out of meetings and a range of interviews were the methods deployed, together with reflections on the implementation of current and new practice. These data streams were then analysed and mapped to reveal the significant features of this new integrated approach to working. One of the key drivers of the ALICSE programme, and a fact recognised by its participants, was (often) the paucity of communication between local authority personnel and their leaders and between the local authority, schools and members of the health service, all of whom were striving to support primaries in challenging circumstances. Being respectful of other professionals and treading carefully to build capacity for action is important in the initial stages of working with other teams (Moss, 2009) and requires the input of all leaders if collaborative ways of working are to be maintained.
As part of the local authority re-structure, the recently organised Locality Teams and the Learning and Inclusion Team were met as a group and interviewed. The three locality managers responsible for Post-16 Education, Children’s Centres and Attendance were interviewed and their views on current practice and ways of working with primary schools in the future were explored. A meeting and interview with members of the Inclusion Team discussed their area-based remit which forms the main part of their work, and attendance at a Vulnerable Childrens meeting observed their work in action. Interviews with the Inclusion Team confirmed their remit and views on improved team working were deduced from the data. The School Improvement Team provided data relating to schools that had been in challenging circumstances but had made improvements and were continuing to do so. As it was deemed important to seek views from the primary schools, two Head teachers were interviewed in depth. This was followed by analysis of the outcomes of a Head teachers’ briefing where integrated working formed the main part of the agenda. Information from these sources together with data from a series of questions on integrated ways of working, were recorded, transcribed, coded and later mapped to provide a comparison with views from the local authority.
Findings of the Study
Data revealed two polarised views of school improvement; the first around the barriers and challenges and the second on how to build and sustain agency and capacity as improvement is evidenced. There was resonance between head teachers and local authority personnel regarding the significant challenges faced in raising standards to meet Ofsted requirements.
Head teachers and local authority personnel identified a range of ‘barriers’ that provided a challenge to inclusion measures and how these barriers might impact on the ability of schools to raise educational standards signficantly. The discourse from this group focused on issues of social deprivation and the perceived inability of schools in these types of catchment areas to be able to cope with these challenges. A further barrier was the perception of disorganised support from the LA which was seen as a contributory factor in these under-performing schools as identified by Ofsted (2011). Typically, such schools show the following characteristics: Poor attendance High pupil mobility New arrivals with limited English and/or little previous school experience Increasing numbers of pupils with high levels of educational and behavioural needs A historic narrative of poor teaching resulting in pupils in the upper end of KS2 needing to ‘catch up’ High numbers of pupils with child protection issues and subject to Child Protection plans Variable quality of response from multi-agency LA teams to school issues Lack of understanding and information relating to newly-established locality teams. Duplicate paperwork and information requests.
The key challenges to families and pupils in primary schools as identified by locality managers and Learning Directorate leaders also focused on challenging community issues and the effects of social deprivation which mirrored the perspectives of the educationalists. A significant feature revealed in the data is the number over-riding negative perceptions that describe the barriers faced by children living in deprived communities. These factors are detailed below: Unemployment and poverty Domestic violence Increasing number of referrals to Vulnerable Children’s panel Housing shortages and over-crowding Influx of Eastern European families who are reluctant to engage with agencies due to past experience in their home countries Gang culture and perceived threats to families Increasing numbers of children in care Poor attendance at school.
In contrast, schools in challenging circumstances that are demonstrating signs of rapid improvement as exemplified in interviews and in discussions with School Improvement teams showed a more positive outlook compared with under-performing schools. Here the rhetoric was focused on the ‘can do’ attitude and the utilisation of resources to challenge, for example, poor school attendance. Flexibility of approach to appointing appropriate staff with good leadership skills and the ability to manage available resources gave rise to these more positive characteristics: High expectations for all pupils Establishment of a ‘can-do’ culture as evidenced through constructive supportive language Effective use of additional funding (pupil premium) Willingness to adapt curriculum and pedagogic approaches to meet the needs of the children Appointment of staff to facilitate multi-agency working (learning mentors) Appointment of family workers and/or multi-lingual support staff to work with parents Positive involvement with the inclusion team and access of all available services Head teachers and Senior Leadership Team willing to offer constructive feedback on how services could be improved (rather than just complaining) Good liaison with Education Welfare Officers and with local schools to ensure positive transitions (through managed moves).
These characteristics demonstrate how school leaders are being proactive in developing capacity and supportive structures to offer a useful way forward. Improving the communication between locality teams, streamlining the use of documentation and having clear strategies for the deployment of support services are ways in which underperforming schools can begin to address their challenging circumstances. The effective targeting of pupil premiums can offer additional support in tackling pastoral and academic failings evidenced in the characteristics of such groups of under-performing schools. With this support, expectations can be raised and targets agreed that will help to determine how the school’s strategic development will evolve, including how and when the LA will provide their interventions. External support and investment can also be evidenced through increased networking between specific teams at relevant stages in the two-way communication between schools and outside agencies.
As a result of the study and associated background research, some key strategies were identified and introduced on a small scale to facilitate better integrated working. The following four vignettes illustrate the changes in structure, communication and ways of leading which have resulted from this integrated work.
Structure and agency approach: Better alignment of local authority support to accelerate pupil progress
Vignette 1
This junior school has been identified by the Department for Education (DfE) as ‘under-performing’. The percentage of pupils attaining L4+ in both english and mathematics has been below 60% for three consecutive years. In 2011 the progress rates from KS1 to KS2 were below the national mean in english and mathematics. In the past, the school has been made subject to ‘Special Measures’ by Ofsted. The Senior School Improvement Officer (SSIO) introduced a system whereby the manager of the Additional Needs team and the New Communities and Arrivals team leader were formally invited to take part in the termly Raising Achievement Plan (RAP) meetings. This enabled the local authority to present a common message to the school in terms of recommended strategies to address the performance of vulnerable groups. The support provided to the school was agreed and aligned at these meetings and the impact was evaluated. The Senior Leadership Team (SLT) reported that by having LA representation at the meeting, members of staff were better able to manage and direct the high levels of inputs to the school. This different approach enabled staff to view the planning of the additional support linked with the school improvement plan as strategic rather than a succession of piecemeal inputs from different teams visiting the school.
Using a joined-up approach to allow the school to understand a different way of working strategically with multiple agencies in support of vulnerable groups.
Improving communication, networking and forging collaborative ventures: Systems to facilitate joint working between Locality Managers and Senior School Improvement Officers
All Locality managers have been assigned a link School Improvement Officer (SSIO)
Vignette 2
The SSIOs meet with the Locality Managers on a monthly basis and report their finding (including emerging issues) to the whole school improvement team. In this way, SSIOs are informed about issues affecting their schools and can therefore provide better, more focussed, support to schools with high levels of vulnerable pupils. The Locality Managers are able to alert SSIOs to any lack of engagement by schools and SLT in terms of multi-agency working. This can then be addressed by SSIOs on their visits to schools. It was agreed that Locality Managers should be able to access SSIO visit reports so that they are able to gain an understanding of the educational context of the schools within which they are working and the strategies the schools are using to support vulnerable pupils including the use of the Pupil Premium and the deployment of Learning Mentors. Both SSIOs and Locality Managers use the joint working to capture and share good practice which benefits all schools across the City.
Positively improved communication strategies that enhance local knowledge about schools and the capacity to share best practice across the schools in the City.
Courage leadership: Capitalising on the skills of team members to influence school improvement through governance
Vignette 3
A City school is subject to ‘Special Measures’ and regular monitoring by HMI. The Governing Body was removed by the local authority and a request to replace with it with an Interim Executive Board (IEB) was made to the DfE. It was agreed that The Head of Service (HoS) for Inclusion should become one of three members of the IEB as the school has high numbers of pupils who access the services managed by this leader. The involvement of this HoS has resulted in higher expectations for vulnerable groups, better provision for multi-lingual pupils and improved leadership and management of Special Educational Needs (SEN). The input of the HoS to the IEB has enabled the board to hold the school leadership to account effectively and is helping them to address issues identified by Ofsted in the Section 5 inspections and by HMI in subsequent monitoring visits. Challenging the inadequate leadership by removing the entire governing body is a good example of courage leadership that has, in this case, resulted in positive responses from the governor support team which is now investigating ways of recruiting appropriate Children and Young People (CYP) staff to governing bodies, particularly for schools in challenging circumstances. Acting on a radical decision to remove the governing body and replacing it with an interim board has strengthened the school’s position in relation to its safeguarding responsibilities and is providing and appropriate context for challenging weak school leadership.
Recognising that governance and its leadership is vital to raising school performance. Taking responsibility and showing courage to challenge SLT when the school is in most need of support.
Integrated leadership: Improved systems for information sharing and integrated working
Vignette 4
In order to introduce the concept of a termly School Review Board (SRB) for each school so that barriers to improvement could be identified and local authority support agreed, initial meetings attended by the Head of Quality, Standards and Performance, the Strategic Director and the team of SSIOs were arranged. As the focus on integrated working has developed, the attendance at this meeting has widened to include Locality Managers and representation from Educational Welfare, Inclusion, Finance, Children in Care, Governance and Human Resources teams. Positive feedback from meetings has been increased as has the level of understanding regarding the complex context within which under-performing schools continue to operate. The actions agreed featured a higher level of integrated CYP input to schools with a view to creating a greater degree of alignment between the support provided by different teams. The introduction of the SRB has enabled teams to share best practice even if it is not known how this might operate in a new setting. The SRB has also provided teams with the opportunity to form alliances so that different working practices can be examined and, where appropriate, used to support school improvement initiatives in other contexts
Improved alignment of school improvement teams and working towards the bridging and brokering agenda that is vital in sustaining longer term school improvement.
Discussion
Significant changes to the education landscape have forced local authorities to adopt different ways of working with schools that are now charged with being more autonomous in their day-to-day work. As a consequence, Local Authorities and Heads of primary schools are charged with confronting their own leadership styles as they strive to work more collaboratively with a variety of agency teams to support children and families. Whilst understanding and agreeing the context, locality and barriers to school improvement (Harris, 2011), it is also important to adopt a ‘can-do’ culture, to remain professionally aware of others and to present a common and consistent message regarding school improvement issues. Leadership that is truly distributed amongst professionals must be recognised as such by teams in schools as well as those within the local authority. These partnerships, in effect, become communities of practice and the sources of leadership development can arise out of shared ideas.
Professional teams have obligations and duties to perform and from such actions a shared moral authority that guides the practices of each and every team is likely to arise. The shift in focus from personal leadership authority to one of moral and professional authority (Sergiovanni, 1997) engenders mutual respect which in turn forms the moral foundations of integrated working. This encourages the development of a high degree of transparency across all teams and results in a greater focus on the ways and means of raising school standards. Murphy’s (2012) focus on the development of procedural frameworks rather than content may help to secure improvement in a context of dwindling resources.
The vignettes presented here show the path to better collaboration between teams. This evolves from effective communication practices that need to be established and maintained alongside a re-alignment of services that remains responsive to changes both in the wider educational landscape and in individual schools. Different styles of leadership are required when the going gets tough, as is demonstrated in vignette three, but consistently throughout each vignette presented in this paper is the means to build better communication capacity within and between the various support teams. Schools working as part of network-based communities (Harris 2011) allow for more autonomous decisions to be taken by professionals from a range of disciplines focussed on support for vulnerable children. The role of Heads (Day et al., 2000; Tranter, 2011) and their Governors as co-ordinators of these integrated services and their contribution to the greater alignment of school improvement teams may help to raise standards and ensure safeguarding for all.
Conclusions
Strategies for the development of integrated ways of working are still under construction and the work of leaders of these teams is still in its infancy. The vignettes presented here together with the data from challenging schools and their journeys to improvement are all powerful leadership learning tools that can resource this venture as the Local Authority and schools strive to understand the new educational landscape. Integrated ways of working offer opportunities to make full use of dwindling resources in challenging economic times and to effectively utilise the skills and attributes of experienced professionals focussing on removing schools from Special Measures. The present political climate demands a different approach to school improvement; one that actively builds collective, professional capacity. There is no single solution for schools that persistently fail to improve, but properly considered and rehearsed experiences of integrated working may provide better solutions to both old and new school-improvement issues.