Networking in education: From concept to action – An analytical view on the Educational Territories of Priority Intervention (TEIP) in Northern Portugal

Abstract

This article presents an analysis of school principals’ perspectives on networking concerning schools and school clusters from areas of social vulnerability (Educational Territories of Priority Intervention (TEIP)) in Northern Portugal. The meanings, purpose, benefits and difficulties of networking in education are examined, based on interviews with school principals. The concept of networking has a theoretical, conceptual and methodological organising function. The data show that networking, partnership and collaboration are used similarly when considering the work inside the school and between schools, as well as with the outside community. Networking is viewed as crucial for the school, and benefits are underlined both for the school and for students and teachers. The culture of isolation and individualism in teachers’ work is a challenge schools face. Although there is a wide recognition of the value of networking in education, there is an equally wide and diverse perspective on it as well as on strategies to implement it.

Keywords

Education educational territories of priority intervention networking

Introduction

Starting from a broader research project, this article intends to make an analysis about the role of networking in education in Portugal, having as a background the narrative of school principals in the Educational Territories of Priority Intervention (TEIP), in the North of the country. The aim was to analyse the concept these actors had of ‘networking’, and its operationalisation in contexts, taking into account three levels of action (Carmichael, Fox, McCormick, Procter, & Honour, 2006; Lima, 2010): work with the community and local institutions, work carried out within the school and work with other schools.

Several countries have adopted compensatory education policies that direct extra resources to disadvantaged schools (Bernstein, 1970; Power, 2008). The ZEP (zones d’action prioritaires) schools in France are concerned with providing ‘additional resources to schools in the most disadvantaged zones and allowing them to develop specific initiatives and educational methods tailored to their students’ needs’ (Bénabou, Kramarzb, & Prost, 2009, p. 346). In Portugal, the TEIP schools follow the French model. They are schools located in contexts of social vulnerability. It is an integrated approach, involving the entire educational community, aiming for the identification of local problems and solutions, investing in the development of internal and external synergies. Thus, networking and partnerships are concepts that implicitly lead and guide the work in TEIP schools.

The article develops, first, some theoretical considerations around networking, partnership and collaboration as used in education communication. Second, starting with a brief description of TEIP programme, its objectives and the legislative framework that supports it, the article stresses its relationship to the research subject. Third, the methodological options are presented, followed by a description of the educational context in which the research took place. Fourth, the analysis of principals’ perspectives focuses their visions of networking developed in TEIP contexts, addressing the objectives, benefits and constraints they see as inherent as well its operationalisation at the inter- and the intra-institutional level.

Therefore, it may be said that there is a strong role for networking in Portuguese schools benefiting from educational measures based on a policy of compensatory education.

Theoretical considerations

There is little consensus on the definition of network and networking, and various expressions are used regarding the concept, namely, ‘alliances, coalitions, collaborations/collaborative, clusters, consortia, development groups, families, partnerships, federations, groupings, territories, trusts, and zones’ (Lima, 2010, p. 3).

Hadfield, Jopling, Noden, O’Leary, and Scott (2006) define networking in education as ‘groups or systems of interconnected people and organisations (including schools) whose aims and purposes include the improvement of learning and aspects of well-being known to affect learning’ (p. 1). In this way, the emphasis is on the improvement of learning and well-being which are relevant for the exploration of principals’ perspectives. Taking a pragmatic view of the concept of network, Lima (2010, p. 4), whose research also focuses on networks in the field of education, uses the term network ‘in a strictly descriptive and analytical sense (. . . ) to refer to a set of actors and the direct and indirect ties that exist among them’.

Given these suggestions regarding the concept of networks and networking in education, it is assumed that networking in education involves joint action in which common objectives are defined at the educational level and that may occur at inter and intra-institutional levels. It is anticipated that there is a connection between the network nodes, where the elements that compose it may be individuals, groups or institutions.

The development of networking in schools is recognised as bringing benefits for schools, students and teachers. Several studies on the topic refer to the potential of networking in school education for promoting achievement, inclusion, innovation (Chapman & Hadfield, 2010a; Chapman et al., 2010) and in the celerity and efficacy of its response to socially vulnerable groups (Ainscow, Muijs, & West, 2006; Muijs, 2008). They consider that it is a powerful means to increase the capacity of schools to overcome the challenges they face and highlight their advantages in terms of widening the opportunities for students and schools (Ainscow et al., 2006; Chapman & Hadfield, 2010b; Hadfield et al., 2006; Muijs, 2008).

Some studies (Ainscow et al., 2006; Muijs, 2008) conclude that ‘collaboration school-to-school’ offers great advantages in terms of enlargement, provision and opportunities for students and schools, as expanding learning opportunities; allowing schools to respond more effectively with socially vulnerable groups; and being more effective in helping solve immediate problems and contributing to increased expectations. However, Muijs (2008) and Ainscow et al. (2006) stress the scarce research on their impact in schools with unsettled backgrounds.

Although most studies stress the benefits of networking in education, it is also important to make a few observations regarding the difficulties (Lima, 2010, 2015). Lima (2010) talks about the ‘dark side of networks’ as

one of the least pursued themes in network research. It involves patterns of behavior and operation related to dysfunctions, destructive conflicts, exploitation and other unforeseen negative effects associated with network constitution and activity. (p. 15)

Networking in education can be adopted by schools as either a response or a strategy (Hadfield & Chapman, 2009). It is a response when school principals and local authorities develop networks as a solution to local problems or for seeking improvements and knowledge sharing. It is a strategy where both central and local governments bring to schools a variety of collaborations to deal with internal and external problems.

In Portugal, there is a growing interest in the topic and its relevance to education. Studies stress that networking intervenes in local, educational and social development, in particular the promotion of educational success (Araújo et al., 2013; Sousa et al, 2013). Lima (2001, 2003, 2007, 2010) analyses the organisation in networking as a suggestion to ensure an effective educational governance, underpinning the evidence of the need to work not only within organisations but also with the outside world.

The TEIP project, a strategy implemented by the central government in 1996, is set within this framework to support deprived populations and as a response to students’ needs and expectations. The programme is based on four strategic axes of action: promoting educational success, combating absence and school dropout, qualified transition to active living and the connecting of schools with local institutions. Underlined in this intervention is the definition of a local educational project, prepared jointly by the schools/school clusters and local institutions.

The TEIP programme ‘provides for the definition of educational territories, which develop specific projects, led by school clusters’ (Abrantes, Mauritti, & Roldão, 2011, p. 18). These projects are developed at the local level with some variations (goals, team, actions and resources) depending on the context in which they are to be developed (Abrantes et al., 2011). TEIP schools are essentially networks of schools with educational action open to the surroundings.

The TEIP project is a proposal for networking in the educational field that is thought to deal with territorial problems that are reflected in the school context. The research on the TEIP programme that has been carried out in Portugal reinforces the social characteristics of these territories, including social exclusion, in which poverty and low qualifications are defining traits.

This model of networking seems similar to the one proposed by Hadfield & Chapman (2009), the ‘hub-and-spoke’ model. According to the author, in this type of network there is a central organising perspective and a connection with other institutions and within the organisation itself (in network), coordinated at a central level. The TEIP project is under the supervision of the central government, but there is a decentralisation logic in which autonomy is given to schools to manage the project locally. Thus, the schools/school clusters have the role of ‘hub’ in the management and coordination of the project at the internal level, as well as in the partnership and interconnection with local institutions. This organisation depends on the objectives, participants and contexts, and there will be flexibility and adjustment of the school network and the networking.

These conceptualisations around networking in education direct the focus of the analysis to the work developed by the schools, reinforcing the objectives, benefits and constraints of this approach in the educational field.

To summarise, it may be stressed that there is recognition of the potential for networking in the field of school education (Ainscow et al., 2006; Carmichael et al., 2006; Hadfield & Chapman, 2009; Lima, 2010; Mifsud, 2015; Muijs, 2008) as a necessity or strategy for schools with potentially vulnerable pupils, located in contexts of manifest social inequality.

It is with this vision of networking in education that we discuss the TEIP project, in educational contexts of social vulnerability.

TEIP schools: further clarification

In an attempt to reverse the situation of underachievement and school dropout in Portugal, some political measures were developed and applied at the level of the educational system such as Programa Interministerial de promoção do sucesso educativo (PIPSE) – inter-ministerial programme for promoting educational success (1988), Programa de Educação para Todos (PEPT) – education for all programme (1990), Programa Nacional de Prevenção do Abandono escolar (PNAPAE) – national programme for the prevention of school dropout (2004) and Programa Mais Sucesso Escolar (PMSE) – more school success programme (2009). In addition to these programmes, in 1996, the Ministry of Education, using the French ZEP programme as a model, implemented the TEIP programme, a measure that covers some schools that exhibit features of social vulnerability and whose school underachievement rates are above the national average.¹

To date, this programme has had three phases, designated TEIP 1, 2 and 3. The TEIP 1 programme covered 35 school clusters and was later extended to include a further 24 (TEIP 2). In 2009, the programme was extended to 49 additional school clusters, and in 2012, the programme entered its third phase (TEIP 3), covering 137 schools/school clusters on a national level.

The TEIP as a measure of educational policy ‘assumes a positive discrimination policy, highlighting the role of local actors and partnerships while contributing to the creation of conditions of equality of opportunity’ (Barbieri, 2003, p. 43). The TEIP emphasises the idea of territorialisation of education (Correia & Caramelo, 2012; Seddon, 2014) and with it the perspective of the need for partnerships and local dynamics, aiming for social and school integration. TEIP schools are basically networks of schools with educational action open to the surroundings.

Therefore, networking is one of the guidelines of TEIP. This was one of the reasons that led us to develop the research in this context since the literature points out the benefits of networking in more socially vulnerable contexts.

Methodological options

This article presents the result of the analysis of 39 semi-structured interviews of school principals under the TEIP project, located in the northern part of Portugal (this research studied 39 of 42 Northern Portugal TEIP schools). These respondents were chosen due to the privileged position they occupy since they assume leadership roles, being responsible for all school decisions. It is a qualitative research based on content analysis (Atkins & Wallace, 2012; Seale, 2004).

The interview was a privileged moment of observation and analysis that allowed drawing of orientations to the categorisation process of the empirical material. As Check and Schutt (2012) state, ‘the analysis of qualitative research notes begins in the field, at the time of observation, interviewing or both, as the research identifies problems and concepts that appear likely to help in understanding the situation’ (p. 303).

Thus, subsequently, the constructed text is seen as a ‘dance’ between the ‘literal’ reading of the material and a reflexive and interpretive reading of the data (Check & Schutt, 2012). This ‘dance’ allowed for the search of regularities that could be found in interviewees’ views as well singularities expressed, contributing form to the voice of the actors, in order to better illustrate their perspectives on the object of study.

Therefore, although there are several dimensions of analysis, the focus is, in this article, on the networking dimension. The attempt is to understand the role local structures develop with schools and how they organise themselves to promote school achievement and what are the benefits and difficulties of networking developed by schools and their effects on the educational routes of students and educational achievement.

To maintain anonymity and confidentiality, the expressions of the actors are identified with an alphanumeric code, in which the letter ‘P’ means ‘school Principals’ and the number, assigned randomly, corresponds to the school.

Networking in education: where theory and practice meet

In Portugal, the concept of networking in education is an important guideline in TEIP schools/school clusters, as a major strategy for working with the educational community. The views of privileged actors, the narratives of school principals, are now presented in the following sections.

The need for networking: ‘The school is doomed to network, there’s no other way’

The empirical material suggests that there is a certain inevitability underlying networking in TEIP schools/school clusters. Although this is a requirement of the project itself, there is a widespread recognition of the benefits for schools and for students:

I think that, unequivocally, it is a huge incentive for us to move to more sustainable actions, that is why I think there may be value added in the creation of partnerships. (P-8)

It’s these partnerships that allow us to give visibility to the school cluster [. . .] allows the kids to take advantage of what the partners bring to the school cluster, what they contribute to the improvement, not only the image, but also the culture of the school cluster. (P-12)

In addition, networking with the community is a requirement for TEIP schools to address the demands that they face on a daily basis, because they have no skills in the social area or due to the scarcity of resources. Therefore, the sharing of resources is highlighted as an important benefit.

TEIP schools deal with a very challenging educational reality, namely, in terms of social involvement, the need for innovation and the search for solutions, inside and outside school walls. The present-day school is faced with the need for a multifaceted intervention, in which networking is viewed as relevant and the actors feel that

Necessarily they have to work with other entities. (P-16)

According to Hadfield and Chapman (2009), there are three different kinds of networks:

some have been ‘imposed’ on schools, others have been ‘incentivised’ by the offer of external funding, but many have arisen because of the efforts of educational leaders who want to ‘make a difference’ in their locality, which assumes their essential ‘good’. (p. 1)

As one principal noted,

the school can’t deal with certain problems, it’s not its function, it has its limitations but thanks to some partnerships that we have and in particular the CPCJ, the health centre, the GNR, and the office where psychologists work, the office of mediation and guidance, where they have a huge job, it is a job. (P-39)

Networking developed with local structures is referred to as ‘partnerships’ and consists of pivotal intervention with partners that are around the school, the community and local institutions in particular, municipalities, parish councils, health centres, hospitals, CPCJ (Commission for the Protection of Children and the Young), IPSS (Private Institution of Social Solidarity), cultural associations, universities, companies and social services, among others. Partnerships allow the school to respond to situations for which it is not prepared, for example, in terms of social intervention with students and families:

The school is doomed to network, there’s no other way, it really needs to network, with the municipality, with an IPSS or with any voluntary institution, the school cannot respond alone, at that level, it cannot respond alone. (P-35)

The school does not have all of the potential, there are means that it doesn’t have. For example, the intervention in the family is extremely important, with the institutions, otherwise often we couldn’t be able to reach out to families; the support to families, mainly because we cannot work with the student on his own, he comes from an environment, he brings a load with him that needs to be worked on, and to work in those environments, only with other institutions. (P-15)

This work is particularly important in confronting absenteeism and school dropout: principals consider that this joint work has an impact on the promotion of better conditions for the pupils to stay in school and improve learning, contributing to the promotion of educational success:

All the partnerships we have with extra school entities allow for the promotion of achievement, but essentially to promote the change of behaviour. (P-2)

Networking with local institutions helps with some of the challenges that schools face, particularly at the level of social intervention. Having recognised the need for schools to establish partnerships with the community, the nature and form in which these partnerships are developed in and around the school are questioned.

Openness of local institutions to cooperate: ‘They’re for what the school needs’

The voices are unanimous with regard to the openness of the school to the community and local institutions with regard to requests from schools. This view supports the openness of local institutions for the resolution of problems that schools face, in particular social issues. Sometimes this is mainly to meet the needs of the school and points to a preferentially unidirectional relationship, in which it is assumed that partnerships serve school:

They’re for what the school needs. (P-21)

Therefore, it is assumed that institutions collaborate as they are requested, and there are few references to educational projects structured and defined together. Usually, the institutions present projects to schools, and these decide whether or not to participate depending on their own needs:

Collaborate as they are requested to cooperate. (P-38)

There are a number of relationships that we maintain and that we take advantage of the best we can, in a good sense. (P-18)

Sometimes, the communication with external institutions is restricted to the loan of space for community activities. In these cases, schools appear as passive in establishing local partnerships. Additionally, one may question the nature of these relations, whether they are a true partnership or networking. This idea corroborates what Katz, Earl, and Ben Jaafar (2009) state: ‘the network is not simply the broker of a parasite-host relationship where schools take from a network . . . the relationship between network and school is a bidirectional, recursive one’ (p. 16):

On a partnership project, and, therefore, connecting to each other, it’s not just one side that profits, but both, and that’s the way it has to be seen, isn’t it? (P-31)

Another aspect of the relations with local institutions is the formality or informality in this relationship. Partnerships can be formal (established protocols) or informal relations. It looks like they achieve better results when there is some informality, based on a greater proximity and communication:

The community is very small, everyone knows everyone, and then sometimes even informally people talk, and these are advantages of a small community. (P-38)

We are also aware, more attentive to the others, many address us and we are more open to collaborate and the others too, therefore, we’re having mutual understanding, and that is fundamental. (P-21)

This work facilitates the opening of the school to the community and promotes its integration in school life, improving somewhat the relationship between school/family/community.

The unavoidable need for sharing resources: ‘Each one contributes with what they have’

With the economic crisis that Portugal is facing, schools feel a worsening of the social problems that will ultimately be reflected in the school context, and therefore, there is a need to strengthen their intervention at this level:

Huge setback in terms of socio-economic conditions that is the result of external factors, which we, unfortunately, have no control over, and the only thing we do, is mitigate the impact of this economic crisis that is profoundly affecting our students. (P-10)

In addition, the lack of resources has led schools to search for answers externally. Thus, the sharing of resources is seen as the main benefit of networking:

And synergies, human resources, and other resources, facilities, not only human and facilities and even financial resources, each one contributes with what they have. (P-6)

Networking . . . we realise that we should share a common view of a reality, which should not be an isolated reality, and in which a set of institutions, organisations, should establish bridges and ties to that resolution. (P-18)

Certainly, there is the recognition of the importance of networking with the different institutions within the community. Among them, the most frequent reinforcement is the idea that working with families is crucial to the school and that the family should be the main node of this network. It may be said that this emphasis on the family may be related in some ways to times of crisis, scarcity of resources and the retreat of state services due to cuts and lack of resources.

Family as the main node of the network: ‘This is the primary network with which we must work’

Actually, the interviewees consider that the family should be the main node of the network, reinforcing the idea of the need for the proximity of the family to school. According to Kovacs-Cerović, Vizek-Vidović, and Powell (2010), ‘schools should invest time, energy and creativity to discover, set up, and make use of the currently neglected dimensions of parent participation, and develop partnership-oriented co-operation with parents’ (p. 8):

We’ve all tried to replace the family: the school, the partnerships, the social supports, the local authorities, who are able to congregate, bridge gaps that are hardly replaceable if there is no family. This is the primary network with which we must work, the network or network node, a fundamental core. (P-18)

This vision of networking points to a perspective of compensatory education in which family action should be of priority:

The school has to respond to these problems that kids bring us. (P-38)

In these views, partnerships appear here more explicit in focusing the relationship of the school with the community, local institutions and the family. However, for a large number of respondents, networking should start within the school and only there will it make sense. Following this line of thought, they reinforce the idea of the collaborative work of teachers.

Inside the school; isolation or co-operation: ‘Nobody is an orphan’ or ‘the classroom as the teacher’s secret garden’

When referring to the networking within the school, principals tend to focus on the collaborative work of the teachers, sharing materials, questions, knowledge and definition of common strategies and common goals. They refer that this work allows for interdisciplinarity and transversality of knowledge that sometimes has a strong impact on the personal and professional development of teachers as stressed by Carmichael et al. (2006):

Internally networking implies this sharing of knowledge, content, practices, habits, experiences, documents, in which there is a transversality of what you do, no one is orphaned. (P-12)

It is the warmth that is given to each of the teachers, the support you feel at work, the reduction of some other work to improve on work already done, instead of starting from scratch. (P-5)

There are some schools that have focused on the development of strategies based on the collaborative work of teachers, for example, collaborative supervision: a teacher will attend the class of a colleague and may withdraw some ideas for his own class and/or give suggestions to the colleague on how to work with his students:

The aim is to go see what you can learn from your colleagues, see what’s positive, so you can use it on your own class. (P-20)

This work allows reinforcing of professional skills. In addition, they state that the mutual knowledge and the size of the school cluster are important for the operationalisation of the work and that the work is harder in clusters of larger schools, pointing out that one of the problems is that people are unfamiliar with each other:

It’s an added value both for the teacher and the students, because the teacher brings a new look to the school, to the school cluster, to its day-to-day, and he feels more enriched, safer, more confident. (P-12)

However, opinions diverge. On one hand, some consider that this work and this culture of collaboration already exist in schools. On the other hand, resistances to this methodology are systematically pointed out. Principals recognise the potential of this work, but reinforce the idea of isolation and individualism of the teaching work. As some underline, teachers are not used to sharing their work; this is stressed as the major difficulty. Teachers perform individualised and lonely work. As several respondents refer,

The classroom is the teacher’s secret garden.

Certainly, they agree with Lima (2003)” ‘today, isolated practice is regarded by most educators, administrators and policymakers as an inadequate way of performing teachers’ work’ (p. 1):

What’s normal and traditional in the Portuguese school is individual work, fragmented, sequential, uniformed, standardisation of procedures, this is the normal work that is the matrix, that’s how the school emerged [. . .]. What has been done, in this school and others is making all the professionals understand that collaboration brings more gains than losses, and therefore protects more each teacher’ own performance, because it is reflected in advance, it’s planned in advance and when it is implemented it is already the result of a collective approach. There’s a lot of work to do, in this and other schools, because this matrix of individualistic work, the secret garden of the classroom, still remains. (P-30)

They recognise that there is an increasing openness on the part of teachers and that the main potential of this work can reflect on the personal and professional development of teaching staff, as well as in the work they develop with the students:

This issue of collaborative work is perhaps one of the most important solutions to undertake, the posture of the teacher, to change this idea of working alone, solitary work, in a room, and start relying on the Class Council, rely on the colleagues. (P-36)

The strong influences echoed in the teacher, the student and the school itself can lead to an improvement in the educational success of student and school:

Network, a concerted, sustained work, a work that is the promotion of the teacher, but also the promotion of the cluster and of the education he will promote with the student. (P-12)

So far, the analysis was considered the perspectives of school principals with regard to intra-institutional networking and the work with the community and local institutions. Although the insights here may be a little ambivalent, there is a commitment from schools to promote a culture of sharing and collaboration at these levels. However, when dealing with networking developed with other schools (whether or not they are TEIP schools), the interviewees are unanimous with regard to the constraints, as reflected in the following statement.

There is no networking between schools: ‘Networking is not an existing reality in our country’

Regarding the work developed between schools, the vast majority state that networking does not exist or is scarce and sporadic, based on teacher training (training centres) or promoted by the municipality:

Networking is not an existing reality in our country, we’re not used to it, we are very used to working in almost independent cells, not interconnected, not interrelated, which means wasting skills and/or competences. (P-30)

With other schools, we, each one, is in its own chapel. (P-11)

‘Schools don’t have that culture of sharing, of networking’

We have differing opinions; for some principals, that work culture does not yet exist. There is no such culture in schools or in the country. Others consider that there already exists a consistent work at this level. The Government encourages the sharing between TEIP schools as the implementation of micro-networks consisting of meetings between various TEIP schools based on the sharing of good practices.

Partnership, sharing and collaboration: faces of the same concept: ‘Networking is working in partnership, in collaboration’

Finally, it is time to address the concept of ‘networking in education’ proposed by the school principals. When asked what they understand by networking in education, principals sometimes answer using metaphors, in which the ideas of network and web stand out. However, when they try to define their concept, they use other expressions they consider to be related, namely, communication, collaboration, partnership, sharing, interlinking, joint work, proximity and connection:

The interlinking is networking, it’s the main definition. (P-2)

Networking is working in partnership, in collaboration. (P-1)

I think it’s the person not being isolated. To work, to take advantage of the best practices. (P-2)

Analysing the design of networking in education proposed by the interviewees, the concepts that emerge from that definition go towards what Hadfield et al. (2006) suggest on networking in education. Sometimes they can even complement and give it a new dimension. Furthermore, they underline notions that are linked with some of the features of networks proposed by Chapman and Hadfield (2010a), namely, the structure, the processes (interactions), the network and agency objectives. According to the authors, ‘school networks also require structures that interact with, and between, the internal school structures that organise what happens within individual schools’ (Chapman and Hadfield, 2010a, p. 311). The same authors stress the importance of the interactions that occur within a network and point to the sharing of experiences, professional development and collaborative work as important processes when we refer to a school network. For these authors, people come together to achieve a common objective or set of objectives, with a certain degree of collective action:

Networking is exactly levering synergies that can enhance everyone’s work, for a common goal. (P-3)

When discussing the concept of networking in education, actors point out – according to Carmichael et al. (2006) and Lima (2010) – three levels: work with the community and local institutions, work carried out within the school and work with other schools:

The networking is working with various social actors all at the same time. That includes the schools here, but it goes beyond the schools. Networking is working with the closest community, and maybe a wider community, in which the school is not closed to itself, but is able to share its problems, and try to share its solutions, and try to find other solutions with other actors, or with other schools, with other institutions, which already exist, locally or at national level, and that sharing allows to value the work that we’re developing, and allows us to do more, in economic and financial terms, to do more with fewer resources. (P-25)

Therefore, although the concept of networking in education proposed by respondents approaches the definition pointed out in the literature, they use partnership and collaboration currently as contiguous notions that merge with the concept of networking in education.

Final remarks

As can be concluded from what was previously presented, TEIP schools in Portugal are schools inserted in educational contexts of social, cultural and economic fragility, in which phenomena like school underachievement remain a current problem that requires an in-depth analysis and for which there must be viable and innovative alternatives. Agreeing with Lima (2010), ‘initiatives to restructure and revitalise schools through their involvement in intra- and inter-institutional networks have grown in number in recent years. Networks of teachers and schools are becoming a key focus of change efforts promoted by professionals and policymakers’ (p. 1).

With regard to the work carried out within the school, the opinion of respondents is unanimous, considering it allows the exchange of experiences and sharing of teaching/learning strategies between the teachers, promoting professional cohesion and encouraging collaborative work. As such, it facilitates co-operation and leads to new ways of teaching, which directly or indirectly impacts the educational achievement of students.

At this level, it is important to underline the importance of collaboration and interrelating of the teachers, as well as the involvement of intermediate TEIP project leaders. The actors recognise the need for change in this area, given the fact that the effects of isolation and individualism in the teaching practices are pointed as difficulties and constraints to networking in these contexts.

When referring to the networking developed with local structures, they highlight the partnerships established with various institutions in the community, which are based essentially on the efficiency of resources (material and human) and synergies that somehow serve to bridge gaps that schools have in this area. The respondents also claim that schools are very open to the community and the institutions, agreeing to participate in several projects that are presented to them. There is a diverse set of local organisations that collaborate and work in partnership with the school, but there are institutions that only collaborate with the school when their intervention is requested.

Respondents emphasise the importance of local partnerships in education, considered as the route to improve the quality of decisions, the effectiveness and quality of services provided (Haynes & Lynch, 2013). It became clear that, globally, the existent partnerships are primarily for sharing resources for the development of the activities. Their presence would be important at other levels, having a more active role at the level of the pedagogical strategy. Therefore, the definition of local educational projects is suggested, with the active participation of the community, with a view of a territorial intervention in educational terms and not only at the school level.

The analysis shows that the greatest constraint to networking in TEIP schools/school clusters lies in the work developed with other schools/school clusters (whether or not TEIP) because even in school/group clusters that share the same territory, there is no educational work at this level. Hence, the current central administration’s initiative of promoting the work between TEIP schools/school clusters, with the creation of work groups aimed at the sharing of practices, is a measure that should be continued, although it can be improved, aiming for a more productive and sustainable work.

It becomes clear that networking is a strategy valued by schools as part of the proposed objectives in educational projects, reinforcing the need for connecting within school clusters and with the community, to enhance learning, school achievement and child well-being. Schools make an effort to implement a culture of school-based collaboration and interconnection.

According to respondents, this is a strategy valued by schools that features several benefits in the field of education. School principals reinforce the need for school clusters to build connections within themselves, and with community structures, to enhance learning and school achievement. However, the ambivalence in perspectives regarding the presence of networking in education points to a blurring on its real operation in the TEIP educational contexts.

The discourse of the respondents points to a vision that, while recognising the benefits of networking in the educational field, reinforces the constraints and difficulties in its implementation, particularly within schools and between schools/school clusters.

In view of this analysis, it is concluded that networking in education, in particular the one developed in TEIP schools/school clusters, is a priority area of action. Its positive effects on schools, teachers and students are recognised. Hence, priority support from central administration to these educational territories is indispensable for the development and consolidation of the ongoing work.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work is supported by the European Social Fund, under the Human Potential Operational Programme (POPH) from National Strategic Reference Framework, and by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, through the FCT PhD programmes (grant number: SFRH/BD/84289/2012).

Notes

References

Abrantes

Mauritti

Roldão

(2011). Efeitos TEIP: Avaliação de impactos escolares e sociais em sete territórios educativos de intervenção prioritária (Relatório do projeto) [TEIP effects: Evaluation of school and social impacts on seven educational territories of priority intervention (Project report)]. Direção Geral de Inovação e Desenvolvimento Curricular (DGIDC), Lisbon, Portugal: Ministério da Educação.

Ainscow

Muijs

West

(2006). Collaboration as a strategy for improving schools in challenging circumstances. Improving Schools, 9, 192–202.

Araújo

Sousa

Costa

Loureiro

Portela

(2013). Building local networking in education? Decision-makers’ discourses on school achievement and dropout in Portugal. In Boufoy-Bastik

Béatrice

(Ed.). Cultures of education policy: International issues of policy-outcome relationships (Vol. 1, pp. 155–185). Estrasburgo: Analytics.

Atkins

Wallace

(2012). Qualitative research in education. London, England: SAGE.

Barbieri

(2003). Os TEIP, o projeto educativo e a emergência de ‘perfis de território’ [TEIP, the educational project and the emergence of ‘territory profiles’]. Educação, Sociedade & Culturas, 20, 43–75.

Bénabou

Kramarzb

Prost

(2009). The French zones d’éducation prioritaire: Much ado about nothing? Economics of Education Review, 28, 345–356.

Bernstein

(1970). Education cannot compensate for society. New Society, 26, 344–347.

Carmichael

Fox

McCormick

Procter

Honour

(2006). Teacher’s networks in and out of schools. Research Papers in Education, 21, 217–234.

Chapman

Hadfield

(2010a). Realising the potential of school-based networks. Educational Research, 52, 309–323.

10.

Chapman

Hadfield

(2010b), Supporting the middle tier to engage with school-based networks: Change strategies for influencing and cohering. Journal of Educational Change, 11, 221–240.

11.

Chapman

Lindsay

Muijs

Harris

Arneck

Goodall

(2010). Governance, leadership and management in federations of schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 21, 53–74.

12.

Check

Schutt

R. K.

(2012). Research methods in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

13.

Correia

J. A.

Caramelo

(2012). Les figures du local dans les politiques d’éducation prioritaire au Portugal. [Local implementations in priority education policies in Portugal] Revue Française de Pédagogie, 178, 41–52.

14.

Hadfield

Chapman

(2009). Leading school-based networks. London, England: Routledge.

15.

Hadfield

Jopling

Noden

O’Leary

Scott

(2006). What does the existing knowledge base tell us about the impact of networking and collaboration? A review of network-based innovations in education in the UK. Nottingham, UK: National College for School Leadership.

16.

Haynes

Lynch

(2013). Local partnerships: Blowing in the wind of national policy changes. British Educational Research Journal, 39, 425–446.

17.

Katz

Earl

Ben Jaafar

(2009). Building and connecting learning communities: The power of networks for school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

18.

Kovacs-Cerović

Vizek-Vidović

Powell

(2010). Parent participation in the life of schools in South East Europe. Ljubljana, Slovenia: Center for Educational Policy Studies, Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana. Retrieved from http://www.erisee.org/sites/default/files/involvement%20of%20parents%202010%20ENG.pdf.

19.

Lima

(2001). Forgetting about friendship: Using conflict in teacher communities as a catalyst for school change. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 97–122.

20.

Lima

(2003). Trained for isolation: The impact of departmental cultures on student teachers’ views and practices of collaboration. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 29, 197–217.

21.

Lima

(2007). Redes na educação: Questões políticas e conceptuais. [Networks in education: political and conceptual issues] Revista Portuguesa de Educação, 20(2), 151–181.

22.

Lima

(2010). Thinking more deeply about networks in education. Journal Educational Change, 11, 1–21.

23.

Lima

(2015). A ação educativa em rede: obstáculos e recomendações. [Networked educational action: obstacles and recommendations]. Educação, Sociedade e Culturas, 44, 9–29.

24.

Mifsud

(2015). The setting-up of multi-site school collaboratives: The benefits of this organizational reform in terms of networking opportunities and their effects. Improving Schools, 18, 236–249.

25.

Muijs

(2008). Widening opportunities? A case study of school-to-school collaboration in a rural district. Improving Schools, 11, 61–73.

26.

Power

(2008). How should we respond to the continuing failure of compensatory education? Orbis scholae, 2(2), 19–37.

27.

Seale

(2004). Coding & analysing data. In Seale

(Ed.), Researching society and culture (pp. 305–321). London, England: SAGE.

28.

Seddon

(2014). Making educational spaces through boundary work: Territorialisation and ‘boundarying’. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 12, 10–31.

29.

Sousa

S. B.

Doroftei

Araújo

(2013). Networks in education: An analysis of selected discourses. Interchange, 44, 311–331.