Structural reform

Introduction: Setting the scene

Much has been made of the policy intention of the present Coalition government and the previous administration in the UK to free head teachers from what some see as the constraints of local authorities and to enable them to develop innovative arrangements in order to meet the needs of all pupils. As the power of local authorities has diminished over recent years, we have seen the emergence of new forms of structural arrangements, which range from informal partnerships between schools to more tightly bound federated models and academy chains, as well as the emergence of free schools. All of these arrangements purport to give greater autonomy to schools, to reduce central control and to encourage diversity of provision (Woods and Simkins, 2014).

Recent education reforms in England have set out a radically different model for the structure of schooling, and the past few years have seen a wave of radical restructuring as former state schools have become independent of local authorities. This has resulted in a wide spectrum of different collaborative models which may require new forms of leadership and governance. These include school federations, chains and multi-academy trusts. ¹ A number of concepts and theoretical ideas associated with structural reform have been identified, which include: changing patterns of power and influence within the local authority and school arena; conceptions of control and autonomy; and the tensions between national policy and its interpretation and the emerging levels of governance, which may be local, regional or national. This article draws on the above concepts, and in particular explores the tensions between national policy and its local interpretation.

The Education Act 2002 had introduced opportunities for community, foundation and voluntary schools to be innovative in order to raise educational achievement. Part 1, Chapter 1, of the Act was entitled ‘Powers to facilitate innovation’, and described in this chapter was the power ‘to two or more schools, subject to certain conditions, to federate’. A federation is defined as two or more schools which ‘have a single governing body constituted under a single instrument of governance’ (UK Government, 2002). Federation does not require schools to become academies – a critical factor for the schools in this study.

Prior to 2010 and under Labour, underperforming schools were forced to become academies, and were removed from local authority control. However, under the Coalition, the policy to convert all schools to academies has been pursued energetically, resulting in a rapid growth of school- or charity-led academy chains and multi-academy trusts operating on a local, regional or national basis. The schools in this study had developed their proposal to federate well before the emergence of school chains and, even as conversion to academy status has become more widespread, the leaders have remained politically opposed to academies, although some have considered academy status for what they describe as pragmatic reasons.

The schools began with the intention to form a hard federation – an arrangement which they believed would suit their particular context and circumstances. The group was made up of ten schools in a small, isolated market town. Together, the schools covered all phases of education and had all received positive Ofsted ratings. The school leaders were well established in their posts and there was a long history of collaboration between the schools in the west of the town, which was seen as more affluent and aspirational than the east side. However, an increasing level of collaboration had been emerging across all the schools, and every head and chair of governors expressed a commitment to working together for the benefit of all pupils in the town. This commitment was more strongly articulated as it became increasingly evident to the schools that the local authority, whose offices were located in the county town some 25 miles away, no longer had the capacity to offer local support.

Over a period of 3 years the schools have modified their vision and plans in order to meet the requirements of the Department for Education (DfE), and are currently attempting to create a multi-academy trust, within a wider collaborative arrangement.

The research project was initially funded for 1 year. Its prime objective was to learn more about the complexities of developing a ‘federated’ model of collaboration and to identify practice that could be replicable to other collaborative developments. Increasingly, as time progressed and the story of the schools’ efforts and experiences began to unfold, I found myself considering a more fundamental issue – that of how far schools really do have the freedom to determine their own future.

Methodology

Information was collected through structured interviews, informal discussion, attendance at meetings and analysis of documentation. Reports I produced during the project were checked with heads for factual accuracy.

In the first phase of the project (2011–12), the head teacher and chair of governors ² of each of the ten schools was interviewed individually as part of a structured discussion, and responses were recorded. This amounted to over 40 hours of interview time. Assurances were given that individual responses would be confidential to the researcher, and all interviewees agreed that unattributable comments could be quoted in the research project report. Informal discussions were also held with the chair and deputy chair of the overarching governing body of the proposed hard federation, both of whom are head teachers of schools involved in the proposal. The main purpose for this was fact-finding and accuracy-checking. Informal discussions also took place with a senior representative of the local authority, with the purpose of understanding the local authority’s level of support for the hard federation and with a representative of the Schools’ Funding Agency. In addition, I attended two meetings of the Strategic Management Board of the proposed hard federation, which involved all the head teachers and chairs of governors. During the second phase of the project (2012–13), a further round of in-depth, semi-structured interviews took place with five head teachers and three chairs of governors. Over the third phase (2013 to date), an oversight of developments has been maintained through contact with the schools and in-depth interviews with the chair and vice chair and two head teachers. This work is still ongoing.

The findings

The narrative relating to the experiences of the schools as they attempted to achieve the proposed federation is presented through three different time phases which outline what has happened at each stage as the schools have attempted to implement official advice and guidance in order to achieve their vision.

Phase 1 (2011–12): The initial vision

The story begins in 2011, when a group of ten school leaders comprising six first, two middle and two high schools (East High and West High) took the decision to form a hard federation, which would retain the ten schools and their governing bodies, united under one overarching governing body, which would oversee strategic developments across the federated body, leaving existing governing bodies to oversee individual schools. The drivers for the federation were twofold: firstly, collective concern to raise achievement across the town; and secondly, the vision and opportunity to create a new all-age education provision across the town.

The head of one first school described the vision as follows:

The main advantage is that all children in [the town] will get the very best that all the schools can give them. Historically the perception has been that of ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ and that there is an east/west divide. Previously the two sides of town did not speak and did not meet together. Culturally, the two sides were very isolated.

By the time the research project began in 2011, school leaders had already drawn up a consultation document for the hard federation, under the auspices of the 2002 Education Act as outlined above. Three main drivers that had led to the proposal to create a hard federation were identified and agreed by all the school leaders – educational, political and financial. Reference was made to reductions in local authority funding at a time when staffing and premises costs were increasing, meaning that smaller schools were struggling to afford a full curriculum range. Additionally, an increase in competition from post-16 providers outside the town was seen as having the potential to take post-16 pupils, and their funding, away from the town. The main enabling factors concerned the shared ethos, commitment, positive relationships and strong leadership which had been developed within the group over a period of some years leading up to the emergence of the proposed federation. The interviews revealed a universally strong commitment and passion for the federation. Without exception, every leader, whether head teacher or chair of governors, articulated a vision that was about better opportunities for all children in the town, and a strategic response to the issues of declining demographic, social and cultural challenges.

The proposed federation’s focus on learning and teaching and curriculum development was universally reported to be of paramount importance. Leaders were clearly excited by the pedagogical possibilities and the increased emphasis and discussion about learning and teaching. Head teachers also reported that they themselves were being developed by taking on a more strategic role which was stimulating, and improving their professional practice in their own schools.

The vision for collaboration had been initiated and driven principally by one head. All leaders said that they believed that the strong, creative and visionary strategic leadership of this person was key to the success of the development. Several leaders, including chairs, referred to the importance of having the right personalities involved at individual school leadership level, particularly as they had previously met blockages from one or two individuals who were no longer in post.

The level of shared commitment was agreed to be a reflection of the immense amount of time that the leaders had invested in the development. Early collaborative work had been going on for several years before a more formal meeting structure was introduced, and although this was time-consuming, heads and chairs alike were positive about the benefits of the time they were investing, but recognized that it was expensive. Some heads, particularly those in smaller schools, reported that through the meetings of all schools, they themselves were being developed by taking on a more strategic role which was stimulating them as professionals and improving their professional practice in their own schools. This was described by one very experienced head and national leader:

This [proposal for the federation] will improve me. It will enable the movers and shakers to challenge, to become the new leaders; it will contribute to learning beyond the years that the pupils are at this school.

However, commitment to the proposed federation began to be tested as the leaders met unanticipated external barriers. The most significant of these was the conflicting policy advice given by the DfE. The schools’ proposal for the hard federation under the auspices of the DfE’s ‘power to innovate’ was refused. Verbal feedback from the Innovation Unit indicated that the proposal did not fit in with any of the models that the DfE had in mind. The timing of this was before the emergence of the big academy chains, which may have been the type of innovation the DfE had in mind. For the schools, this was an unexpected and powerful blockage to the realization of their vision and resulted in the first of several changes in conceptualization of the hard federation over the coming months as the schools attempted to meet the requirements set out by department officials.

Over the 3-year period of the project to date, schools leaders have reported that advice received from officials has not been consistent and has altered according to whoever was giving it. Added to this, lengthy timescales for meetings with officials, and apparent changes in policy, have forced the schools to rethink their proposals on several occasions. This has led to considerable frustration, disappointment and anger on the part of the leaders. One first school head teacher described her frustrations as follows:

The whole focus [of our proposal] is about the best for every single child in [the town]. Joining up opportunities, smooth transition, leaving this school with the best possible support to progress. It is frustrating that it is taking so long. The potential is tantalizing.

By the end of the first phase of the research project, it had become evident that the DfE’s ‘power to innovate’ did not give the schools the freedoms they believed they had, and it became clear that a ten-school ‘hard federation’ was not workable. The schools were determined not to give up. They had invested a great deal of time in developing their vision and were absolutely committed to its realization.

Phase 2 (2012–13): Rethinking the hard federation

Following the rejection of the proposal for a hard federation of ten, three of the schools reacted quickly with an alternative model and, by September 2012, the two high schools, along with one middle school, had formed a hard federation under one governing body, an executive principal and a head in each school. By the end of the autumn term 2012, the governing body had approved a 3-year plan which addressed strategic and structural developments. Alongside this smaller hard federation, the wider group of ten schools continued to develop their capacity to collaborate. Heads and chairs of governors continued to express strong commitment to federation and a great deal of optimism about its potential benefits. The heads from the wider partnership of ten were very positive about the emergence of the hard federation of three, and reported that the route of the development of the ten had been very time-consuming but probably necessary, acknowledging that the hard federation of three would probably not have happened without the ten. As a first school head commented:

We have come a long way, on a circuitous route, but it was a route we needed. The hard federation [of three] wouldn’t have happened [if this route wasn’t taken] and this is a very positive outcome. We still all work together and time has brought a better understanding and even more openness. The [ten school] action plan is the bedrock for the school development plan, and teaching and learning is at the centre of that.

Phase 3: Emergence of the multi-academy trust

In April 2013, the three-school hard federation indicated its intention to pursue the establishment of a multi-academy trust. This was a surprising development to me, because up to this point the school leaders had been clear that they did not wish to become academies, but they were constrained by limits to what they were able to do as a hard federation. The change in their position on academies was explained by the executive head to be purely on financial grounds as follows:

to prevent top-slicing of the schools budget by the local authority

This apparent shift in emphasis from educational to financial drivers was explained by reports of the heads that they were being financially squeezed, at a time when the local authority’s capacity to support had been greatly reduced and they were seeing academy converters across the county attracting more funding. The lead head saw the development of a multi-academy trust as a means of securing more funding to achieve their educational aims.

The proposed multi-academy trust was planned to be operational from September 2013. However, this proposal failed, having been rejected by the DfE on the grounds that levels of pupil achievement at the proposed lead school had fallen and the department was questioning the capacity of the school to act as a lead for the trust. In fact, the GCSE pass rate at the lead school had dropped from 66 percent 5+ A–C in the academic year 2010–11 to 52 percent in 2011–12. The low result in 2011–12 was explained to be a direct result of a national problem, whereby there were claims that the grade boundary for the GCSE English papers had been moved and the papers marked too harshly, resulting in unprecedented numbers of fails. The lead school calculated that if pupils had achieved as predicted, the school’s overall GCSE results would have been around 68 percent 5+ A–C. In fact it rose again to 63 percent in 2012–13.

The DfE suggested that the hard federation of three would be able to form a multi-academy trust if they became a sponsored academy. The schools rejected this. It became evident to the lead head that decisions were being made purely on the basis of examination results and/or Ofsted inspection grades, without any consideration beyond this. The lead head was an established National Leader of Education ³ who had taken five secondary schools out of special measures over an 8-year period. He reported considerable concern about the changing rules (or changing interpretation of the rules), describing how the DfE had encouraged one of the schools he oversaw as executive head, graded as ‘Good’ by Ofsted in 2011, to convert to academy status, whereas his own school, also graded as ‘Good’, was prevented from doing so on the basis of one year’s GCSE results. Another of the heads in the hard federation had been a National Leader of Education, but had been redesignated as a Local Leader as a result of an (expected) fall in Key Stage 2 results.

Frustrated by the DfE officers’ decision-making based purely on data, with no apparent attempt to exercise professional judgment, the executive principal and the governing body of the federation began to consider other alternatives. At the time of writing this article, it is the intention of the three schools in the hard federation to form a learning trust, operational from September 2014, and for each school to be designated as a foundation school. The school leaders believe that this arrangement will enable them to continue to implement their vision and plan, and to continue to work with the wider group of ten across the town.

When asked whether the past few years had yielded benefits for education in the town, the lead head was very positive about this:

There have been clear financial benefits from economies of scale on such things as sharing grounds maintenance. There has been a positive impact on curriculum planning, particularly through sharing experiences in assessment and moderation. The collaboration has given opportunities for the professional development of heads, and the pooling of some funding has enabled smaller schools to access professional development, which would have been unaffordable to them previously. The schools have developed a very high level of trust and will discuss educational issues honestly and openly. The chairs of governors have a far better understanding of the big picture.

At the time of writing this report, the future is still uncertain.

Discussion and concluding comments

An analysis of the enabling and constraining factors internal to the group of schools in this project suggests that there are identifiable elements which are key features of successful federated or other collaborative models, and other elements that may be prerequisites of success. Findings suggest that the decision to enter into a federated model or other formal partnership should not be taken lightly. Forging successful alliances is problematic and the resulting alliance may be very fragile, particularly if untested in a potentially contentious area. By their nature, alliances tend to be very dependent upon personalities, and their survival may be limited if key people are removed.

Evidence from this project suggests that there is likely to be a greater chance of success where the schools concerned are united in terms of their vision and values, as well as their history, geography and demographics. They are likely to fare better under a visionary and creative leader, who is willing and able to challenge and influence across a range of levels and to manage the complex dynamics between the heads and governing bodies. This requires additional and different skills from those of running a school, and the research findings support the importance of having someone who can take on this role. In addition, the findings suggest that by entering into a wider partnership, such as a federation, there are opportunities for school leaders to develop new experiences, skills and knowledge which will have a positive impact on their own professional development and which may translate into a more coordinated approach to the planning of curriculum and learning across all ages and phases.

Changing patterns of power and influence within the local authority and school arena are placing greater responsibility on schools to develop their own self-improving systems. The drive for competition between schools remains prominent, as does the agenda for new academies. This proposal for whole-town collaboration may have cut across departmental priorities, despite a policy which prima facie offers schools the power to innovate in order to improve educational achievement. The experiences of these school leaders indicate that in reality the freedom to innovate is limited, and appears to be granted on the basis of crude measures, such as examination results or Ofsted judgments, without recourse to professional judgment. Furthermore, there is a sense that sands are shifting and that there is a lack of consistency in the act of decision-making.

Much of the national debate around structural reform has focused on concepts of autonomy and accountability. These concepts have been touched on during interviews with school leaders but require deeper consideration as the vision for collaboration is realized, in whatever form. The policy blockages encountered by the schools have provided such a significant hindrance to progress that energy has been focused away from questions about individual school autonomy and decision-making within a federated arrangement, to considerations about the tensions between national policy and its interpretation by different players and its implementation over time.

Although the school leaders do not believe that there has been an agenda to block their proposal, they have been frustrated by the numerous tensions and challenges as they have attempted to innovate and been prevented from doing so because of apparent differences in the interpretation of policy on the part of DfE officials, as well as a moving of goalposts. Their experiences raise the question of who knows best when it comes to developing education provision. Is it school leaders who understand the context of the locality or is it government ministers and civil servants? In the absence of a third mediating tier, such as a local authority, the dialogue rests between individual schools and central government. Yet central government cannot hope to understand the complex pattern of relationships, personalities, history, culture and society within a locality. Nor does there appear to be any evidence of an understanding of the complexities of creating effective and sustainable collaborative arrangements. Trust was seen by every leader to be a critical factor in effective collaboration, and evidence suggests that it may take years to build. It remains to be seen whether the rapid growth in formalized collaborations such as multi-academy chains and trusts will deliver sustainable, effective collaborative models which succeed in raising achievement and improving the quality of education over a long-term period.