1. School-to-School collaboration: a new model for school improvement?of S2S Partnerships for Southampton City Council Daniel Muijs University of Southampton

2. Networking and collaboration Increasing interest from policymakers in education Limitations of top-down approaches Limitations of single-school improvement Large number of programmes in the UK recently Networking has also gained popularity in the private sector due to increased competition and need for innovation

3. Why network? Many glib statements, but…

4. Goals and activities Networking is not just about improving performance Three main goals: –School improvement –Broadening opportunities –Resource sharing

5. Goals and activities Activities can be aimed at –Short term –Medium term –Long term

6. Theories of networking Theoretical groundings for networking can be classified as: –Constructivist organisational theory –Social Capital theory –New Social Movements –Durkheimian network theory

7. Constructivist organisational theory Organisations are sense-making systems creating shared perceptions and interpretations of reality Create own reality, which risks becoming myopic Need for collaboration, which is also hard –Need sufficient cognitive distance –Need to be similar enough for dialogue –Co-operation lies at the heart of learning

8. Social capital Networking allows organisations to harness capital held by other actors Networking improves the flow of information in an organisation and plug structural holes Networks can influence their environment more Is social capital an individual or collective good?

9. New social movements More fluid than traditional social movements Complex, heterogeneous and transient Build their own identity Voluntaristic

10. Durkheimian network theory Anomie: –Alienation from prevailing values –Feeling of isolation and disconnect –Lack of ties Collaboration can help develop ties and reduce anomie

11. Little strong causal evidence But: evidence of specific forms of collaboration having specific impacts Need for more quantitative studies Can networking and collaboration raise attainment?

12. The impact of Federations National Pupil and School Datasets from 2001 onwards As no list exists, 50 LA’s contacted 264 schools and 122 Federations were identified Matched sample drawn Multilevel models

13. Do Federation schools outperform comparators? Year 0303 0404 0505 0606 0707 0808 0909 1010 2004 cohort X X 2005 cohort N XXXX 2006 cohort NN XX 2007 cohort NNN XX 2008 cohort NNNN X

14. How much difference do they make? Cohort/Year2007200820092010 2005 cohort11.417.122.634.4 2006 cohort 26.429.5 2007 cohort 30.935.7 2008 cohort 27.5

15. What kind of collaboration? Performance Federations Academy Federations

16. S2S collaboration in primary sector Strong primary asked to collaborate closely with one or more struggling primaries Usually 6 months to 2 years 45 schools involved 16

17. Methods Mixed methods approach: 1.Quasi experimental quantitative study 2.Qualitative case studies

18. Impact on standards Quasi experimental study Matched sample Propensity score matching – Prior attainment – FSM – Ethnicity – SEN – School type

19. Multilevel models – significant differences 201020112012 English X X X Maths XX Science X

20. Multilevel models – effect sizes 201020112012 English 11% 13% Maths 16% 29%33% Science 19%24%

21. Multilevel models Schools in the partnership significantly outperform matched schools not in collaborative partnerships Impact strongest in supported schools, but also exists in supporting schools Not across the board, some examples of failure 214

22. What activities work? Leadership development – Coaching and mentoring – Restructuring leadership teams Developing teaching and learning – Range of activities: AFL, coaching, observation, joint lesson planning Quick wins – Preparing for inspection

23. What makes partnerships work? Clear focus on a limited number of goals ‘ Otherwise there are too many mixed messages ’ (Deputy Head, supporting school). A whole-school approach Openness from the supported school: ‘ If the head is not totally open, then how can it work. ’ (deputy head, supported school)

24. What makes partnerships work? Mutual benefits. ‘ You can always learn something. No matter what kind of school it is, we can always learn something and always bring something back. ’ (head, supporting school) Capacity in the supporting school. It ’ s also about knowing your own strengths and weaknesses, and what you can and cannot do. Also the strengths and weaknesses of your staff. You ’ ve got to know who can help who. ’ (deputy head, supporting school).

25. What makes partnerships work? A phased approach Trust and personal relationships. ‘ You don ’ t have to be best buddies, but you have to be on the same page ’ (head, supporting school)

26. Conclusion Overall, these studies supports growing evidence in support of collaboration as a school improvement mechanism Supports constructivist and social learning theoretical perspectives Points to factors that need to be in place, however.

27. Conclusion Is school-to-school collaboration a new model for school improvement? Yes! But… No panacea! Conditions need to be in place One element of broader school improvement ‘landscape’ Operating within a ‘coopetitive’ context 272