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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. University of Southampton
model 0
S.E.
model 1
model 2
Response
KS4_PTST
Fixed Part
constant
11.997
11.416
12.827
KS2 total points score
14.089
0.519
8.881
FSM eligible
5.721
IDACI
0.002
Language - not English
-2.358
13.403
SEN - School action plus
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
19.382
Gender - Female
18.451
3.452
Daniel Muijs
University of Southampton

9. 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

10. What are characteristics of less and more successful networks?
number pupils on roll
0.002
0.04
percentage pupils with SEN statement
percentage pupils with SEN without st
89.165
pct unauthorised absence
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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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