Daniel Muijs University of Southampton Conditions for Successful Collaboration and Networking Among Rural Schools Daniel Muijs University of Southampton

University of Southampton Introduction Collaboration is a growing part of the English education system Federations Academy chains Justified in terms of school improvement and efficiency Four main theoretical positions advocating interorganisational collaboration and networking: constructivist organisational theory, the theory of social capital, ‘New Social Movements’ theory, and Durkheimian network theory Daniel Muijs University of Southampton

Rural schools and networks in England England is largely urban:   Percentage total land area Percentage total population Urban 20.9 81.5 Rural -Town and Fringe 18.2 8.9 Rural - Hamlet, Village and Isolated Dwelling 60.9 9.6

Rural schools and networks in England Main focus in policy and school improvement has been on urban schools (e.g. ‘London/Manchester Challenge’) Recent focus on coastal towns Lack of interest in rural schools, not seen as having the same problems Recent evidence, however, shows 8 out of 20 lowest performing LA’s rural Daniel Muijs University of Southampton

University of Southampton Evidence to date Overall some evidence of positive effects of collaboration in England (Chapman & Muijs, 2014a, 2014b) Some specific evidence of positive effects in rural schools in England (Muijs, 2015). What we know less of: To what extent does overall effect mask differences between networks and schools? What characterises less and more successful networks? To what extent do such characteristics differ between rural and urban/suburban schools? Daniel Muijs University of Southampton

University of Southampton Methodology Secondary data analysis: Reanalysis of public data on school collaboration, focussing on rural schools, using multilevel statistical models Reanalysis of survey data on schools forming collaborations, using descriptive statistics and Non-parametric tests Qualitative interviews with staff in four rural networks Headteachers/principals Governors Teachers Daniel Muijs University of Southampton

University of Southampton To what extent does overall effect mask differences between networks and schools? GCSE Total Points Score and 5A*-C inc English and Maths as dependent variables Prior attainment and pupil characteristics as predictors in initial models Daniel Muijs University of Southampton

University of Southampton model 0 S.E. model 1 model 2 Response KS4_PTST Fixed Part constant 452.822 11.997 509.506 11.416 482.331 12.827 KS2 total points score 14.089 0.519 8.881 FSM eligible -52.798 5.721 IDACI 0.002 Language - not English -2.358 13.403 SEN - School action plus -160.21 6.567 SEN - School Action -90.28 4.892 SEN - Statemented -133.8 10.807 Ethnicity - Mixed 22.535 11.595 Ethnicity - Other European 65.895 28.428 Ethnicity - Asian 64.933 17.519 Ethnicity - Chinese 81.162 32.408 Ethnicity - Black -18.395 19.382 Gender - Female 18.451 3.452 Daniel Muijs University of Southampton

University of Southampton To what extent does overall effect mask differences between networks and schools? Variance model 0: L1 (student): 80.6%, L2 (School): 11.0%, L3 (Network): 8.4%. Explained variance: Model 1 Model 2 Student 10.0 19.7 School 12.8 2.0 Network 10.7 0.5 Total 10.4 Daniel Muijs University of Southampton

What are characteristics of less and more successful networks? number pupils on roll 0.002 0.04 percentage pupils with SEN statement -688.975 406.667 percentage pupils with SEN without st 175.572 89.165 pct unauthorised absence -2023.45 833.291 Structure: SharedHead 1.551 24.916 Structure: Joint Governing Body Facilitators: shared goals 18.45 10.78 Facilitators: shared vision 12.1 10.23 Facilitators: headteacher leadership 15.17 9.85 Facilitators: teacher willingness to collaborate 25.23 7.85 Facilitators: complementary resources 31.88 8.98 Facilitators: shared challenges 18.94 8.08 Facilitators: complementary understanding/knowledge 18.51 8.54 Facilitators: shared culture 20.17 12.21

What are characteristics of less and more successful networks? Barriers: finance 38.41 10.28 Barriers: staff resistance 10.45 6.98 Barriers: lack of PD 12.5 7.58 Barriers: insufficient time for leaders 17.01 8.2 Barriers: insufficient time for teachers 19.52 8.74 Barriers: lack of shared vision 7.56 5.87 Barriers: lack of complementary resources 12.45 8.12 Barriers: different challenges 18.78 8.01 Barriers: lack of complementary understanding/knowledge 7.24 Barriers: lack of shared culture 17.98 9.98

What are characteristics of less and more successful networks? Explained variance: L3 (network): 18.3% L2 (school): 17.7% L1 (student): 0.7% Total: 4.6% Daniel Muijs University of Southampton

University of Southampton To what extent do such characteristics differ between rural and urban/suburban schools? Wilcoxon rank order test comparing rural with non-rural schools No difference: Facilitators: Shared vision, goals, headteacher leadership, teacher willingness to collaborate, complementary understanding Barriers: staff resistance, lack of shared vision, lack of complementary resources, different challenges, lack of complementary understanding or culture Higher in rural: Facilitators: complementary resources, shared culture Barriers: finance, insufficient time teachers, insufficient time for leaders, lack of PD Daniel Muijs University of Southampton

Facilitators and barriers: qualitative evidence Bottom-up approaches predominate, mainly HT driven Need for collaboration seen as greater in rural areas due to distance and lack of resources Cross-network working parties characterise successful networks, involving MM and teachers Spreading management and risk Joint resources and economies of scale Daniel Muijs University of Southampton

University of Southampton Conclusion Significant differences in outcomes for different networks and schools in rural areas – networking is not a school improvement panacea These differences related to specific facilitators and barriers, supporting four main theoretical positions (Durkheimian, constructivist, NSM and social capital), but mainly social capital Rural networks are different: Greater challenges in terms of finance and resources Greater emphasis on complementary resources and challenges Contextual factors - greater distance, lower resources, lower (state school) competition Daniel Muijs University of Southampton