Abstract
School-to-school collaboration has been central to many improvement efforts over recent decades. In an attempt to promote both improvement and equity current developments in England have included changing formal governance arrangements to promote collaboration for improvement through ‘federations’ and ‘chains’ of schools. However, federations and school chains remain a relatively under-explored area and there is a noticeable absence of research exploring the impact of such arrangements on student outcomes. This paper draws on a programme of research including the national evaluation of federations, the first quantitative study of the impact of federations on student outcomes and a longitudinal qualitative study of the development of federations to consider two key questions: What is a federation? And do federations make a difference? In order to achieve this, the paper provides an overview of the key characteristics of federations and considers their contribution to improvement efforts. In conclusion the paper reflects on a number of issues and implications associated with developing a federated school system.
Introduction
Interest in reforming leadership and governance arrangements to promote school-to-school collaboration has grown rapidly across several educational systems. The United States, Sweden and England have continued to experiment with new approaches involving independent state-funded schools (ISFSs) such as academies, charter schools and free schools and it has been argued these types of schools naturally lend themselves to the development of groups of schools working together as federations and chains under a single governance structure (Policy Exchange, 2009). However, the evidence pertaining to the extent to which these reforms promote collaboration or impact on student outcomes remains contested.
This paper reflects on the English experience, a system that has invested heavily in this approach. The policy promoting school federations has been resilient, surviving many changes in Secretary for State and even a change in central government. The current government’s White Paper (DfE, 2010) confirmed the commitment to readjusting school autonomy and redefining notions of accountability through federations, groups and chains of outstanding schools, academies and free schools:
Schools working together leads to better results… Along with our best schools, we will encourage strong and experienced sponsors to play a leadership role in driving the improvement of the whole school system, including through leading more formal federations and chains. (DfE, 2010: 60)
The government’s belief is that developing formal arrangements to free up schools from central bureaucracy, handing over control for improvement to the highest performing schools and sponsors and promoting collaboration across school boundaries will raise educational standards within the education system. Despite the lack of strong evidence to support this view these components have become central to the next phase of educational reform in England. These reforms may play an important role in the emergence of what David Hargreaves (2010) has described as the self-improving school system where local problem-solving and mutual support between schools can support innovative approaches and more ambitious outcomes.
Given the pace of change within a ‘self-improving system’ it is difficult to track developments and experiments. It is even harder to assess the extent to which or how these developments relate to outcomes. Therefore, it is unsurprising the knowledge base pertaining to ‘what works’ and ‘why’ lags behind policy and emerging practice. Furthermore, the diverse and at times bizarre interpretation of policy mandates by educational leaders can lead to unintended and perverse outcomes and structural variations and diverse practices on the ground can present a complex and often confusing portrait of the English education system. Put simply, concerns do not only relate to impact on student outcomes, they also relate to the nature of the policies themselves. A fundamental question remains. Whether we are developing well or ill-conceived policies within the current structural conditions remains an area for further exploration.
The purpose of this paper is to draw on and assess the available evidence from the English system and tease out the lessons for developing school federations and chains. The paper is structured in four further sections. The first section places federations in context by offering a range of theoretical perspectives on collaboration in public service and educational settings. The remaining three sections of the paper are structured around two key questions: What is a federation of schools? And do federations make a difference? The final section reflects on a number of issues and implications associated with federations of schools.
Conceptualising collaborative activity
There is considerable literature relating to many aspects of collaboration. This spans the private and public sector and takes a range of perspectives and foci.
Grid Group Cultural Theory (Douglas, 1982) can be traced back to Emile Durkheim’s work on social organisation and integration, and provides a helpful framework for thinking about contexts for inter-organisational collaboration. Within Grid Group Cultural Theory egalitarian cultures assume low grid characteristics with few central rules, low levels of regulation and ascribed behaviours combined with high group characteristics including strong collaborative relationships between group members within well-defined boundaries. Hood (1998) argues that in public service ‘production’ egalitarianism leads to mutualistic organisations whereby organisations collectively deliver services themselves, as might be the case in successful federations and chains of schools. However, Hood (1998) also argues that in individualised cultures exhibiting low grid and low group characteristics where market forces dominate users are portrayed as customers of an organisation, contracted within a competitive market by government to provide a service. The parallels with ISFSs such as charter schools, academies and free schools are clear. Mutualistic organisations situated within egalitarian cultures would seem to facilitate the emergence of a ‘self-improving’ education system underpinned by federations and chains while individualised cultures and market-based forms of organisation would seem less likely to stimulate a sustainable ‘self-improving’ education system underpinned by federations and chains.
If we turn our attention from a system and organisational perspective to individuals within organisations, it would seem on an individual level people engage in collaborative endeavour for a number of reasons. People can form alliances to protect or enhance their own resources in an attempt to preserve the status quo or increase their capital assets. Sullivan and Skelcher (2002) describe this as the ‘pessimistic perspective’, underpinned by resource dependency (Emerson, 1962) and political economy theory (Benson, 1975). The driver for collaboration within the pessimistic perspective tends to be selfishness and other motives related to increasing one’s sphere of influence through transactions supporting empire building. In contrast to this ‘pessimistic’ perspective Sullivan and Skelcher also outline an ‘optimistic perspective’. This is derived from exchange theory (Levine and White, 1962), collaborative empowerment (Himmelman, 1996) and regime theory (Stoker, 1995). Those whom collaborate with an optimistic perspective believe their work will result in systemic gains and the altruism of stakeholders will override the desire for individual gains. The final perspective outlined by Sullivan and Skelcher is the realist perspective. Here motivations are guided by evolutionary theory (Alter and Hage, 1993); here both pessimistic and optimistic perspectives coexist, viewing the wider environment, specifically the changing context as the driver for collaboration. Those involved recognise the trade off between losses and gains through collaboration and understand the arrangement is mutually beneficial.
The three perspectives or drivers for collaboration outlined by Sullivan and Skelcher provide a helpful framework for us to think about how and why collaboratives such as federations may or may not generate meaningful educational change, and what are the issues, tensions and dilemmas associated with these ways of working. For school leaders and their staff entering federal arrangements with a pessimistic perspective the potential to generate meaningful change might appear limited, while those who enter with an optimistic perspective might become frustrated or disillusioned when their work does not appear to be yielding the expected returns. Finally, it might seem that those who enter federal arrangements with a realist perspective might have the most chance of developing sustainable collaborative activity.
Building on the ideas of Michael Fielding (1999), Ainscow and West (2006) offer another lens for thinking about collaborative activity. This is based on four levels of collaborative endeavour:
Association
This is the traditional pattern, where there are some links between schools through occasional local authority (LA) led meetings and in-service events. By and large however, it does not involve the sharing of knowledge and resources.
Cooperation
This is where closer links develop through participation in meetings and activities that provide opportunities to contribute experiences. As a result there may be some incidental sharing of knowledge and resources, and thus some transfer of existing knowledge.
Collaboration
This involves schools working together to address particular problems or challenges. By their nature, such activities require the sharing of knowledge and resources, but often these initiatives are focused on specific objectives and are not sustained. However, there are limited opportunities for knowledge creation, though recycling is less common, as such collaboration most often assumes ‘stronger’ and ‘weaker’ partners.
Collegiality
This involves a wider and longer-term relationship, between schools and teachers, in which there is recognition of interdependence and, to a degree, the sharing of responsibility for one another’s progress. It leads to the bringing together of existing knowledge and resources within an agreed set of values and, potentially, the creation of new knowledge for all. In this way, collegiality provides a network within which social capital can be built up (Ainscow and West, 2006: 315).
This typology suggests a hierarchy whereby the purpose is to move towards a set of collegial relationships. Clearly there are also implications for federations and federation leadership here. Given their structural arrangements the intention is that federations create a collaborative situation where partner schools work together to address a particular set of problems and challenges. However, it would seem collaboration is a necessary but insufficient ingredient for success. For a federation to sustain its activity the typology suggests a move towards collegiality is necessary, whereby the relationships are far more robust and rooted in an agreed set of values and interdependent ways of working.
What is a federation of schools?
The term federation covers a range of collaborative relationships between schools and is sometimes used to apply solely to schools in formal, structured relationships governed by legislation – ‘hard’ federations – (for example NCSL, 2011) but it can also be applied to a much broader range of collaborations (for example by the National Union of Teachers (NUT), 2012). Conceptual clarity over the definition about what a federation of schools is, or is not, remains problematic.
The government’s website claims the idea behind the establishment of federations as follows:
Working together through formal shared governance structures enables schools to raise standards, enhance provision by sharing resources, staff, expertise, and facilities and in the case of small rural schools ensuring they remain at the heart of their communities. The variety of models offered by federation make it adaptable to suit individual contexts, and local needs and objectives. There is no blueprint for federations. Each federation will be tailored to the different schools and communities that are involved. A successful federation ensures that all children can access a broad learning curriculum and high quality teaching expertise. (DCSF, 2009a).
The development of federations in England was one of a number of government funded initiatives designed to foster school improvement and raise standards through partnerships in a variety of forms. Since 30 August 2004, all categories of maintained school, including nursery schools and special schools, voluntary aided and foundation schools have been able to federate under one governing body if they wish to do so. More informal collaborative arrangements between maintained schools and schools that are not maintained by LAs – such as academies, independent schools and 16–19 colleges – are also possible.
Section 24 of the Education Act 2002 defined the school governance structure where two or more schools share a single governing body. This arrangement is usually referred to as a ‘hard’ federation. Section 26 of the legislation also provided for schools to have statutory governance arrangements involving the delegation of powers to one or more joint committees, responsible to the governing bodies of one or more schools. This arrangement is known as a ‘soft’ federation. This was supplemented by the School Governance (Collaboration) (England) Regulations 2003 which set out regulations for collaboration between schools, including those for governance, for the establishment of joint committees and for the appointment of ‘associate members’ to committees. Further legislation on hard federations followed with the School Governance (Federations) (England) Regulations 2007 which set out the procedures involved in forming (and dissolving) hard federations.
Opportunities to federate have continued to exist and have been incorporated in subsequent innovations following the introduction of the Academies Act 2010. The Education Act 2011 (DfE, 2011) amended legislation on schools in federations that wish to become academies and allowed them to convert to academy status without first having to leave their federation. These arrangements allow a federation’s schools to acquire academy status even if not all of them have been judged outstanding by Ofsted. It is also possible for existing federations to apply to become academies either as separate institutions or as academy federations (DfE, 2012).
The flexibility of federation and collaboration arrangements makes it difficult to estimate exactly how many schools now operate within hard or soft governance federations and no such statistics were collected for the period 2002–2009. However, Ofsted (2011) draws on information from LAs to suggest that 400 schools may have federated in this period. Since January 2009 the DfE and its predecessor have kept a list of schools wishing to enter hard federation. Of these 163 had done so by April 2011 and a further 19 were awaiting approval at the time Ofsted compiled its report (Ofsted, 2011).
Governance, structures and processes
Decisions to federate largely depend on local circumstances and needs and the resulting partnerships may take a variety of forms that reflect the nature and wishes of participating institutions. Chapman et al. (2009) identified the following distinctive federation forms:
The National Federation for Educational Research (NFER) provided further descriptors based on four different structural types: Hard Governance; Soft Governance; Soft Federations and Informal, loose collaborations. However, there are many points on the continuum between and beyond what the DCSF originally referred to as Hard and Soft Federations (NUT, 2012). The current government refers to ‘hard federations’ as simply ‘federations’ and to all other forms of ‘soft federation’ and ‘collaborations’, as simply, ‘collaboratives’. For the purposes of this paper I refer to current government definitions unless the research cited has used an historical definition.
Key characteristics of federations
Federations have the following key characteristics including:
A single governing body that is shared by all schools, established under statutory regulations (section 24 of the Education Act 2002);
Shared common goals formalised in a Service Level Agreement (SLA) and protocol;
Opportunities to share budgets in some areas. Although budgets remain separate, sharing a governing body allows for budgetary decisions to be made on behalf of all schools;
Potential for common appointments to management and other posts. The possibility of common management can lead to the appointment of a single head teacher across all the schools in the federation. (NUT, 2012)
Key characteristics of collaboratives
Collaboratives do not require the establishment of any new identity but have some key characteristics:
Member schools retain separate governing bodies but have joint governance and may delegate power to a joint governance/strategic committee. These arrangements are covered by statutory collaborative regulations under section 26 of the Education Act 2002;
There are shared goals throughout the federation, expressed through an SLA and protocol. The joint committee can make joint decisions in some areas;
There are separate budgets – but the joint committee may have budgetary powers delegated to it;
Shared appointments to management and other posts are a possibility but protocols or contracts need to be put in place to ensure a commitment to shared posts. (NUT, 2012)
At the most flexible end of the continuum it is possible to:
Set up a collaborative without having to follow federation regulations;
Retain individual governing bodies with representatives who meet on a joint committee;
Agree common goals are shared although it is up to each governing body to authorise plans and decisions;
Hold separate budgets but recommendations may be made which would have to be approved formally by each governing body;
Shared appointments to management and other posts are a possibility but protocols or contracts need to be put in place to ensure a commitment to shared posts. (NUT, 2012)
The following section of this paper moves on to consider what evidence exists to suggest federations of schools make a difference to students, staff and the wider community.
Do federations make a difference?
In this section of the paper I move on to consider the evidence of impact of federations. In doing so I draw on a range of studies conducted over the past decade and present the evidence under the following key themes:
Teaching, learning and curriculum;
Impact on students;
Impact on staff;
Impact on community and other agencies.
Teaching, learning and the curriculum
There is evidence to suggest hard federations offer a wider range of learning opportunities for pupils and that the sharing of some resources with other schools in the federation, notably through the employment of a qualified School Business Manager, can free head teachers to focus on teaching and learning. Government has also claimed, and there is some evidence to support the claim (Lindsay et al., 2007; Muijs, 2008) federations can offer a wider range of learning opportunities for children (DCSF, 2009b).
There is no one specific approach to teaching and learning for federations although some chains of federations have adopted a single pedagogical approach across all schools within a chain. For the Harris Federation (2012) operating 13 academies in South London, 12 secondary and one primary the ‘Harris way of doing things’ extends beyond pedagogy. The federation has a very strong sense of its brand, claiming to ‘combine modern best practice in teaching and technology with a focus on traditional values of respect, good manners and hard work.’ Pride in the Harris educational ‘brand’ is instilled in pupils via the introduction of school uniforms (New Schools Network, 2010).
Monitoring of classroom practice, focused professional development of staff and curriculum redesign have been used to raise standards in performance federations. Hill (2010) asserts that stronger schools help weaker schools to improve through:
Intensive observation and monitoring of lessons;
Facilitating opportunities for staff from weaker schools to observe classroom practices in higher performing schools;
Mentoring and peer training;
Helping to address curriculum weaknesses.
Hill argues that this model of initial dependence by one school on another can only be sustained if the relationship between the schools develops over time into one in which there is mutual learning. This view is supported by research into emerging practice in other federations that involved staff collaboration and the movement of staff across school sites, including in the Parkside Federation, Cambridge (Chapman et al., 2008)
Ofsted (2011) confirmed that, in performance federations, the greatest impact is always to be found in teaching and learning, achievement, behaviour and, almost always, in attendance. Teachers in these schools were observed to employ a wider range of strategies, including engaging pupils by involving them in self-assessment.
Impact on students
Lindsay et al., (2007) reported that there was no evidence of any improvement in student outcomes in federated schools over and above that of non-federated comparator schools. However, a more recent study (Chapman et al., 2009) involving multi-level modelling techniques analysing 254 schools, grouped in 122 federations across 50 LAs and 264 comparison schools found that, although there appeared to be little statistical difference between some types of federations and comparator schools, performance federations – where a higher and lower achieving school had been federated – showed the most positive impact on student outcomes. The same study found that there were no significant differences between federated and comparator schools in the grades awarded by Ofsted, although the sample size on which this strand of analysis was based is small.
Findings relating to the impact of federations and collaboration in rural areas, suggest there had been significant benefits for schools in terms of the ability to pool resources, leading to a broader curriculum and professional development opportunities. For example, benefits included joint appointments of technical and specialist staff and collaborative mentoring and coaching schemes. However, there was less evidence pertaining to the creation of learning communities and no significant impacts on student outcomes (Muijs, 2008). These findings support evidence that the potential for collaboration to have an impact on schools is context specific, offering the cautionary note: ‘The view of collaboration as a panacea for school improvement is not supported’ (p. 71). Muijs also identified tensions between federated schools which replicated not only the benefits of some LA activities, but also some of the problems, suggesting federations have the potential to become overly cumbersome and bureaucratic.
In a follow-up to their 2009 study Chapman et al. (2011) found statistically significant evidence of improved performance by pupils in federated schools.
The bulk of the federation effect on student attainment at GCSE occurs in school federations where higher performing schools partner lower performing schools. These performance federations have a positive impact on both the higher and lower performing schools in the partnership. (Chapman et al., 2011: 4)
Crucially, they identify a time lag in this improvement which begins to become apparent after 2–4 years in a federation. Federations also outperformed collaboratives, especially where a federation executive head teacher was in place. For secondary schools this research identified significant improvement in academy and performance federations. In the primary sector faith and performance federations achieved improved outcomes compared to their comparator schools.
The findings of a study conducted by the government inspection agency Ofsted (2011) reported that while federation was not the only contributory factor, actions taken by federated leadership teams had a positive impact on outcomes, notably improvements in English and mathematics observed in all of the federations visited. Ofsted (2011) also noted benefits for students in terms of expanded opportunities to meet students from other schools and to make new friends, with consequent increases in pupil confidence. In particular they found that cross-phase federations eased transition across different phases of schooling by adopting common approaches to teaching, learning and assessment that enable the receiving school to tailor its provision for new pupils more effectively. Pupils felt more confident about moving schools where they already knew some of the other intake from schools in their federation. Working with a larger pool of pupils created opportunities to establish new peer groups, for example for gifted and talented students, that addressed feelings of isolation and promoted enjoyment of learning (Ofsted, 2011).
Impact on staff
Much research has been conducted about how federations are led and staffed, and on the possibilities of leadership development within them. Ford and McCue (2008) found that federations support professional development in at least seven ways:
They allow school governors and leaders to examine their unique circumstances and use them to the advantage of staff and pupils;
They create opportunities for leadership roles which may not occur elsewhere;
They make successful and effective professional development opportunities available to all staff;
They offer career advancement possibilities which lead to greater staff retention (there is wider scope for advancement within federations than in single schools);
They assist the development of cultures of succession planning;
They allow member institutions to access a diverse range of leadership styles;
Staff who are contracted to the federation rather than to a single school facilitate a collegial outlook.
Lindsay et al. (2007) found that high quality leadership was considered central to federation success, but where leadership was acknowledged to consist of a team of equals between the schools, distributive leadership was less noticeable within the schools. The federation often had a strong advocate for the partnership. This was usually the person who had driven the development of the federation. These leaders were very skilled at developing complex leadership teams and managing and leading within, across and beyond their organisations
Williams (2008) and Todman et al. (2009) claim that federations have significant benefits for rural primary schools. Federations facilitate the pooling of both financial resources and leadership and leadership capacity to improve and extend provision. Rural federations of primary schools were supported by their LAs encouraging them to form partnerships rather than appoint a head teacher where the number of pupils on roll fell beneath a certain threshold. The creation of teachers in charge was a consequence of this process, and Williams (2008) describes this innovation as ‘an excellent prospect to develop leaders in the future’. Federations were also cited by head teachers as a reason why they had not sought other positions, because they were now allowed to lead and collaborate rather than merely to manage. Other key benefits identified were:
Increased quality of specialist support;
Enhanced possibilities for staff professional development;
Widened curriculum;
Capacity to provide extended support services. (Todman et al., 2009)
Ofsted (2011) noted that opportunities to work across more than one school and develop their skills offered new challenges to leaders and staff that acted as incentives to stay in post rather than look elsewhere. This served as a strong motivational factor, particularly for experienced head teachers who were looking for a new set of challenges but were unsure as to whether they should move to a larger school or take a change in career direction. Federations can also serve to raise teachers’ expectations and offer higher quality and more relevant continuing professional development, largely due to access to a wider pool of expertise across the federation (Chapman et al., 2008, 2010).
The most significant changes to pay and conditions of school staff has been in the employment of head teachers who are in charge of more than one school and in the direct employment of staff by the federation itself, or through separate contracts with different schools and the federation. The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) arrangements for the protection of employees when businesses change hands have not been affected. The NUT’s main concern about federations has been about the possibility of using them to cut staffing levels. The NUT recommends this is taken into account during any consultation. This is an area worthy of further exploration.
Federations, particularly in primary schools in rural locations, are seen by many (for example, Ford and McCue, 2008; Williams, 2008) as a solution to the problem of a shortage of good head teachers.
Impact on community and other agencies
Guidance from the NUT (undated) states that there is broad support for inter-school collaboration and that, at times, more collegiate approaches to educational provision have helped to counter the rivalry and competition for pupils which was fostered by some government policy reforms. At the same time federations offer benefits in some specific contexts, for example in maintaining the viability of small rural primary schools through resource sharing (Todman et al., 2009; Williams, 2008). Overall, research suggests that federations can be a useful means of avoiding school closure, especially in isolated rural areas. However, Muijs (2008) found that some schools felt dominated by more centrally located or larger ones, and the issue of collaboration in a competitive quasi-market system led, in some instances, to mistrust of other schools’ motives. The role of LAs remains crucial in ensuring equity.
Hill (2010) argues that the merits of federations (as with other chains of school) are increasingly established, more so in the secondary sector than the primary. He argues that there is a reluctance to join hard federations in particular because parents and communities fear losing the identity and autonomy of their school. There is concern over joint funding arrangements and, for every new school joining a hard federation, the governing structure has to be dissolved and reformed, creating discontinuity. The NUT claims the main principle behind deciding to form a federation should be the sharing of expertise, resources and facilities, and that terms and conditions for staff should not be adversely affected. They suggest that soft federations should be considered as an alternative to school closures or school reorganisations that might lead to greater school competition and marketisation within a locality. Where hard federations are to be formed they argue that the federation should be accountable to the communities it serves (which can be difficult if the federated schools are not in the same LA); that the formation of the federation should be in the best interests of the school community; that the LA should be involved in the decision-making process and that each school should have a teacher governor as well as the head teacher on the overarching governing body.
Williams (2008) found that governors were fearful of the term federation as they with the development of partnerships (at the soft end of the continuum) and greater collaboration opened the way to the possibility of harder federation forms in the future. She concludes that no school should be forced into partnership and that federations should have common accountability measures and admissions policies. Todman et al. (2009) emphasise the importance of LA advocacy of partnership and their brokerage and support for more formal agreements and arrangements. Case study research by Smith (2011) looked at challenges experienced by leadership and governance when forming and establishing a federation. Recommendations to emerge from this research are that governors need to:
Take control of the process from the outset;
Secure commitment from school leaders to the vision of the federation;
Show innovation and be aware of their legacy (as they may not be involved once the federation is established).
Once federated, governing bodies must establish new structures based on a shared identity and clear, common goals. They also need to keep in mind the earlier research by Chapman et al. (2009) showing that federations must adapt to the needs and educational challenges of the local community.
Evans (2009), in a paper available on the New Schools Network website, argues governance of federations needs to be reconsidered and that executive committees should be set up along the same lines as interim executive boards (for failing schools) to include appointed and semi-professional governors who are able to share their expertise and could be paid for their involvement. In the absence of any evidence to support this view he speculates issues caused by struggling governing bodies could be overcome by establishing soft federations with a reduced number of governors led by semi-professional leaders. This would seem an interesting alternative model but assumes there are those within the system who, first, would be prepared to undertake such leadership and second, actually have the skills and capacity to make a difference in these challenging settings.
Nevertheless, there are signs that federations may offer a way forward in addressing many of the most pressing educational priorities. A recent report from the UK’s largest employment body, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), called on government to promote and facilitate the development of more federations and chains of schools to improve standards in coasting or failing schools (CBI, 2010) and
Chapman et al. (2011) point to clear evidence that federations have a key role to play in supporting self-improving schools, saying that what has happened so far has ‘only scratched the surface in terms of understanding the full potential of federations and chains to drive systematic improvement’ (p. 28).
Some federations are maintained by LAs but are able to use associate governors to share expertise, although the roles of these governors are limited, as defined in the legislation. Others are maintained as groups of ISFS in chains of academy federations.
Schools struggling to meet government ‘floor targets’ 1 may have a ‘structural solution’ imposed on them by central government. Where this involves reconstitution as a federation, LAs have played a role in facilitating and supporting the development of the new model of schooling by:
Providing support and advice;
Facilitating information exchange;
Providing finance and resources;
Brokering and facilitating collaborations.
There is also some evidence that LAs can be effective in the monitoring and evaluation of collaborative arrangements (Atkinson et al., 2007). Ofsted (2011) cites similar examples of effective LA support and brokerage, adding that some LAs also supported the recruitment of federation leaders. LAs were less involved where they had little previous experience of federation or were suspicious of the motives behind it. However these LAs were often won over by success and so came to see federation as an asset. However in looser, culture-based collaborations, LAs have little involvement (Atkinson et al., 2007).
It seems clear the middle tier has a role to play in supporting the development of federations and chains of schools. However, given the ongoing erosion of LA power it may be that another set of arrangements will be better placed to perform this function. This might take the form of mutualistic organisations where federations and chains themselves coordinate provision through various federal agreements, alliances and networks; it might come from strategic management executives in academy chains or from another set of actors emerging within the middle tier. Most recently, Hill (2012) has outlined the case for school commissioners in England.
Issues and implications
The success or otherwise of school-to-school collaboration in the form of federation is dependent on in-school factors and where there is a history of collaboration within a school, it is easier to facilitate school-to-school collaboration. It would seem that federated approaches may be of particular benefit to schools facing challenges, in that they can ‘transfer existing knowledge…and generate context specific new knowledge’ (Ainscow et al., 2006: 193), although these are the schools where such school collaboration tends to be most problematic. However, it would seem that collaboration is most likely to work in communities where pessimistic perspectives are marginal and communities are not in competition with each other. This exposes a major fault line in education policy. On the one hand, policy promotes collaborative approaches but, on the other, is competitive, based on the drivers of the free market and standards. The extent to which one school contributes to another’s improvement or capacity building is not visible in performance tables or even inspection reports. Therefore, schools can become insular and protective tending to focus on what external agents measure their success by rather than developing optimistic or realist perspectives to collaboration as outlined by Sullivan and Skelcher (2002). The willingness of schools to collaborate is further restricted by the labelling of some schools as ‘failing’ or ‘causing concern’. This can place partner schools at risk, placing hard earned reputations of individuals and schools on the line. For some the risk of collaborating in a quasi-market is too great. Put simply, collaborative approaches, and therefore federations may not be suited to all contexts and they take time to create. They are dependent on individuals investing time and energy to build relationships and develop a shared values system where notions of equity are paramount.
It would seem a shift from market-based to mutualistic organisations is likely to be problematic within an individualised culture. However, if an egalitarian culture can be developed this might support the development of mutuals including federations and chains of schools. Therefore, it would seem likely from a Grid Group perspective (Douglas, 1982) policy efforts might focus on developing high group characteristics within the system rather than continuing to pursue market-based approaches.
The research summarised in this paper highlights the main benefits of federation as: economic (resource sharing, etc.); school improvement and raised standards resulting from an enhanced curriculum and the development of teacher expertise with the forging of better relationships between schools and, from this, a greater awareness and understanding of schools. In order for collaborative working to be effective the messages are clear – time invested in resolving issues related to competitiveness, inequality and cultural differences is a prerequisite and this demands building a shared awareness and through face-to-face dialogue (Atkinson et al., 2007).
The relationship between performance federations and improved student outcomes reported by Chapman et al. (2009, 2011) indicate the potential for locally generated solutions that impact on schools in challenging circumstances. This is a welcome sign in a system that has been preoccupied with mandated, top-down driven change. However, how federations are created is key. There are examples where they have been initiated through top-down directives. This would seem to be counter to the requirement to generate positive relationships and a shared values system based on equitable improvement. It would seem policymakers should resist the temptation to intervene rather than facilitate. Leadership needs to be located within the partnership and care taken to avoid domination by one key player. All stakeholders (including teaching staff) need to be involved in negotiating aims. The role of the LA should be that of facilitation rather than leadership, and collaborative arrangements should not be imposed. Some research (Chapman et al. 2009) identifies an apparent lack of evidence of differential impacts related to socio-economic status, gender or special educational need while Ofsted’s (2011) findings show that small schools which federated to improve capacity generated better achievement for vulnerable pupils, including those with special educational needs and/or disability. These are encouraging indicators and suggest federal arrangements are worthy of further investment and exploration.
The federations programme has promoted understanding of how parts of the education system can be restructured and revised. The support for a broad range of federation types has allowed schools to explore a range of purposes, foci and degrees of collaboration pertinent to their particular needs and priorities. For most, the priorities were focused on improving standards but, encouragingly, over half of the examples studied in the evaluation of the national pilot also identified increasing inclusion as a priority (Lindsay et al., 2007). Furthermore, working across institutions is also known to add significantly to existing workloads and to pose considerable tensions and challenges. Therefore schools must exercise caution before entering into any form of collaborative arrangement without a clear, shared purpose (Huxham and Vangen, 2005).
Finally, in conclusion I offer a cautionary footnote. While the federations’ initiative is a policy which encourages partnership and collaboration and shows promising indications of a way forward, the question posed by Evans et al. (2005) remains as pertinent as ever:
how can collaboration and partnership overcome the inequalities in a system based on choice and specialism, which has the potential of both overt and covert selection of pupils on the basis of aptitude, and the underpinning advantages of social class position? (p. 233)
It would seem that without attending to the deeper structural issues rooted in society the quest for educational improvement, whether in isolation or collaboration remains limited. This said, developing collaborative approaches is a promising way forward but collaboration needs to go far beyond the education system. What is needed is a coherent approach to educational and social reform driven by a joined-up programme of social policy designed to tackle inequality. Until we can achieve this, current approaches are unlikely to meet the expectations of either policymakers or the general public.